/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12783676]

Is modern society dysgenic? Assuming no major changes in the forseeable future and no gene editing, what would the average human born in the year 2500 look like?

[Anonymous No.12783691]

>>12783676
>hurr modern society is dysgenic
>WOMEN ONLY MATE WITH CHAD
pick one incels, then have dysgenic sex

[Anonymous No.12783696]

>>12783676
modern society is environmentally and culturally damaging yes

[Anonymous No.12783701]

>>12783691
Even Chad doesn't have as many kids as Laquisha

[Anonymous No.12783713]

>>12783676
>dysgenic

dysgenic implies the existance of an already established optimal trajectory for selection, which would mean that we have already solved the problem itself.
Since we haven't dysgenics is a crap argument.

[Anonymous No.12783744]

>>12783691
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Extremely selective females coupled with polyamorous males will eventually give rise to inbreeding.

[Anonymous No.12783745]

>>12783691
Chad is just astetically pleasing to women, doesn't mean that he is genetically fit
Also women add their genes

[Anonymous No.12783764]

>>12783713
what a midwit take

[Anonymous No.12783797]

>>12783764

because "oh no the society is going to shit" is a better argument.

People wasting their life away and getting weak and unmotivated is not a sign of dysgenics, is a sign that natural selection works and fuck them if they can't adapt, honestly.

[Anonymous No.12783804]

You wake up and you look like the guy in OP.
What do you do?

[Anonymous No.12783805]

>>12783745
Yes it does mean he is genetically fit

[Anonymous No.12783808]

>>12783676
No gene editing? Not on my watch.

[Anonymous No.12783853]

>>12783805
Wrong. Sexual selection causes dozens of species to go extinct every day. Fisherian runaways and female sexual selection does not necessarily select for fitness, many times female selection lowers the absolute fitness of a species.
Women's modern idea of "chad" is obsolete. Men in the future will be small and energy efficient.

[Anonymous No.12784100]

>>12783676
>no gene editing
But that`s boring. The future belongs to the transhuman.

[Anonymous No.12784620]

>saves humanity by rejecting incel and gets pregnant with chad's semen
>christian chud's make bad genes survive because in monogamy everyone has a partner
SAY IT WITH ME, THE FUTURE IS FEMALE

[Anonymous No.12784763]

>>12784620
This is the future.

[Anonymous No.12784857]

>>12784620
The future belongs to the machines.

[Anonymous No.12784926]

>>12784100
>>12784857
This.

[Anonymous No.12785077]

>>12783676
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

[Anonymous No.12785086]

>>12783853
"Genetic Fitness" is defined as the ability to get laid

[Anonymous No.12785775]

>>12784620
monogamy isn't what causes dysgenics
its when you keep supporting people who can't support themselves, that then keep breeding.

The main benefit of monogamy/patricarcy is you don't have 3/4 of men doing nothing because they don't have a family to provide for. That way you don't lose out on a large economic resource that doesn't necessarily need to be 200IQ gigachads for many jobs that can support society.

[Anonymous No.12785862]

>>12785086
The absolute fitness of a species is the amount of replacement that a generation has.
If your species loses 20% of its population per generation the species it's absolute fitness is .8

[Anonymous No.12787213]

>>12785775
monogamy keeps shitty genes and it's tangentially related to supporting people who can't support themselves. when you say everyone should be able to reproduce with one female your are saying the same thing as let's support everyone.
the right mode for reproduction if for chad to have a harem of stacies

[Anonymous No.12788102]

>>12787213
Monogamy only has a slight dysgenic effect, unless you are trying to go full puppy mill Chad production. A monogamous family can still have 8 easily. Without any sort of welfare a low IQ + big dick can only support a limited amount of kids. With welfare and with polygamy a low IQ + big dick can have an unlimited amount of kids.
Practically speaking polygamy is only good in a post war scenario with a large loss of life, but polygamy also causes a much more violent and less productive society in the long run

[Anonymous No.12788138]

>>12787213
Monogamy has literally no dysgenic effects you fucking idiots. Harem based tournament selection tends to be seen when there is a lack of resources and males kill each other and babies in order to rape females. It's a sign that a species needs to conserve resources because they exist in a shit niche and they have low reproductive rates.
Monogamy is seen in species where they don't need to worry about gathering resources so they're able to pair off and invest more parenting into offspring. Monogamy is better for a species genome than tournament selection. Monagmous species have better immune systems, larger population sizes, less intraspecies competition and death, etc.
This is also true for male larger dimorphism. It's worse then female larger dimorphism as it implies that there is a lack of resources and there is extra strain on survivability, and it bottlenecks genetic diversity which is worse for the immune systems of the individuals in a species, etc.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The ultimate form of pairing strategy in a species is monogamy with either little dimorphism or female larger dimorphism.

[Anonymous No.12788180]

>>12783676
i would be more worried about the low birth rate of high-IQ humans, not to mention all the homosexuals and trannies (many of which are quite smart).

[Anonymous No.12788190]

>>12784100
yes. this.

[Anonymous No.12788192]

>>12788138
Monogamy only works with virginal females, otherwise you still run into many of the issues you listed

[Anonymous No.12788198]

>>12788192
monogamous species tend to pair bond and mate for life with a single partner.

[Anonymous No.12788318]

>>12788138
Why would monogamy lead to less dimorphism? I see your reasoning behind resources, but just because less resources would imply polygamy. Why would less resources also imply more dimorphism?
What prevents high specialization in a high resource scenario? (simply no absolute need? )
As far as societies go you could point to any high standard of living country where men and women diverge more in their career choices, as well as their appearances.

[Anonymous No.12788352]

>>12783691
>If you blatantly oversimplify the topic then op’s post kind of contradicts some other things that other people on this anonymous website have said checkmate INCELS
What are you trying to achieve?

[Anonymous No.12788357]

>>12783853
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12788361]

>>12788357
That response is scientifically correct.
You are the retard.

[Anonymous No.12788372]

>>12784100
this, transgender people are our future

[Anonymous No.12788413]

>>12784857
>>12784100

[Anonymous No.12788443]

>>12784857

[Anonymous No.12788539]

>>12788318
First I want to say, there are rules, not laws, in biology. There are a handful of exceptions to almost everything. I'm sure you know this so let's just go foreward with the explanation, with the understanding that it applies to 95% of cases and not 100% of them.
When we actually observe species in nature that are monogamous, they usually have very little size dimorphism or female larger size dimorphism. The reason this happens with monogamy is because there is simply no reason for males to become large when they don't need to worry about fighting for food and mates.
Males larger size dimorphism is driven by sexual selection and resource allocation. Males are big IFF they need to beat up other males for food and mates. This is because in terms of actual reproduction, a small male and a big male are just as good at impregnating a female. A male can literally be the size of a womans toe and he'd still be able to impregnate her by swimming up her vagina and fertilizing her eggs.
So in a species where males don't kill each other for food and mates, all that extra energy and food that would have been monopolized by one male instead goes towards other members of the species and their offspring. This increases the population size of the species as a whole and increases the species absolute fitness. A species with a population of 2 million will not go extinct as easily as one with a population of 200,000. Males eating less (because they don't need to worry about being strong) and being smaller means more food goes to children and other members of the species, which makes the species as a whole stronger. This is true even if you assume infinite resources.
1/2

[Anonymous No.12788543]

>>12788318
>>12788539
Therefore, monogamous species which do NOT spec into male larger dimorphism, are inherently superior and outcompete and dominate monagomous species which DO spec into male larger dimorphism. They get a larger population for the same amount of food, so the species as a whole is superior in the niche. This is why when we observe monogamy in animals, there is little dimorphism, or female larger dimorphism.
The reason for female larger dimorphism is because female size is inherently superior, unlike male size. Bigger females can lay more eggs or give birth more easily or have larger litters. This is not like males. Male size is externally molded. Big males only exist when the environment needs them to be. Big females are better because the reproductive role of a female is one where being bigger is simply innately better. Males do not have this requirement.
This is why, in birds of prey or rabbits or shrews or some other monagomous mammals, females are bigger than males even though they are monogamous.

When I write things like "In the future, men will be small and women will be big" I am not bullshitting. We WILL become a female larger species by the end of the century. We will use genetic engineering to achieve this. Female larger dimorphism is inherently superior to male larger dimorphsm.
Yes, I am slightly autistic and insane. That does not matter. Yes I know a lot of women may not like the idea of men being small and women being big. That does not matter.
When we look at couples where a huge 6'6" dude is dating some shrimpy 5 foot tall woman, that is nothing but a reminder that throughout humans evolutionary history, tens of millions of babies were murdered, women were raped, men were forced to kill each other, everyone was starving.
It is a stain on our species and it WILL be completely wiped out of the genome. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can do to stop this.

[Anonymous No.12788553]

>>12788543
You’re unbelievably arrogant with your assumptions, which do not correlate to modern human societies as they may in the wild.

[Anonymous No.12788799]

>>12788543
Your milf fetish is clearly getting in the way of objectivity

[Anonymous No.12788835]

>>12788138
so... asians?

[Anonymous No.12788863]

>>12788539
>>12788543
interdasting, thanks for the effortpost. I think that even in serially monogamous animals, there is some evolutionary benefit to the male being larger. For instance, protecting females while they're vulnerable (ie pregnant, nursing, giving birth)

[Anonymous No.12788983]

>>12788543
the biggest wrench in your "big titty goth mommy gf that takes of my onions 4'5" ass future" is that there's already so much momentum behind larger male dimorphism that women slowly becoming actually successful in running society seems very unlikely even with gene editing.
pic related only exists due to a combination of welfare/family court/affirmative action/increasing polygamy. Once this artificial societal game runs out of money nature will assert itself
One massive thing you miss about polygamy is that it also allows for women to have multiple mates as well compared to selecting the single best mate.
The only time polygamy weeds out bad genes is if you have strong patriarchal social rules

[Anonymous No.12789032]

>>12783691
Incels exist because women had sex with incels or chads with recessive incel traits. The honourable thing for incels to do would be to campaign for uthanization in their countries and encourage eugenic polciies that minimize the production of incels. It could be very easily justified on economic grounds.

t.incel whose accepted it.

[Anonymous No.12789067]

>>12788983
Women wouldn't be taking care of men, everyone would be self sufficient. Men most likely would have a more active role in child rearing.
Fat women are inferior in reproduction so making women out to look like fat ugly ogres isn't an accurate depiction of what I'm talking about. Don't strawman me with ugly people, neither of those two goblins that you've posted have a right to exist in my world. I'm not interested in ugly people. People will be symmetrical and attractive. Women will be beautiful and men will be cute.
Are you a man or a woman? I genuinely don't understand how any man could dislike what I write about, but it's clear to me that a modern woman would dislike the idea of men being small. Women's preferences are clear I'm not going to pretend like the average woman likes the idea of smallness in males, although about ~4% IIRC of women have the preference for being larger than their boyfriend. These are the women will will be used as models for the future woman.
If you are a guy, please explain why you dislike what I write about when I go on my autistic rants. I do not understand why you'd have a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.12789142]

>>12789067
>People will be symmetrical and attractive
>and attractive
you have a weird view on attractiveness
your ideal world simply does not exist in reality
>I genuinely don't understand how any man could dislike what I write about
hormones largely dictate what men or women find attractive, low test men tend to find male traits in women attractive because their hormones are closer to that of a women than a man. You see this in when trans or gays start taking hormones it will change their sexual preferences to more align with the hormone they are taking, or when low test men start working out or taking extra test.

[Anonymous No.12789239]

>>12789032
Why would you need a campaign when you could just buy some rope and hang your self?

[Anonymous No.12789241]

>>12788102
modern society needs docile, obedient, sissy, productive males that resemble more of a robot than a living animal. based females still follow nature and choose the violent and strong male

[Anonymous No.12789245]

>>12789032
incels exist because womanlets and ugly women reproduce, and because men with a lot of money reproduce.
99% of men either wealthmog or facemog their partners

[Anonymous No.12789257]

>>12784620
Women aren't saving humanity
Feminist countries have lower birth rates

[Anonymous No.12789281]

>>12789241
Stop projecting your fantasies thinking they have any basis in reality

[Anonymous No.12789304]

>>12788799
Everything I wrote there is how things work in nature. That is objective.

[Anonymous No.12789329]

>>12789142
>your ideal world simply does not exist in reality
Obviously it doesnt exist now, we do not live in the world I'm talking about. I don't understand the point of this sentence.
>hormones largely dictate what men or women find attractive...
Hormones regulate sexual motivation, there is no hormone correlation in sexual preferences among people and there is no research that corroborates what you're talking about.
>"In eugonadal men, testosterone levels have no significant association with different kinds of sexual activity, except for frequency of masturbation(48). Similar results were reported in couples; in men there was no correlation of testosterone levels to sexuality of any kind "
file:///tmp/mozilla_steven0/[1479683X%20-%20European%20Journal%20of%20Endocrinology]%20Testosterone%20levels%20in%20healthy%20men%20and%20the%20relation%20to%20behavioural%20and%20physical%20characteristics%20facts%20and%20constructs.pdf
There is hormone correlation with women and what they find attractive as they go through the menstrual cycle, but this changes based on that womans individual sexual preferences. If a woman has a preference for smallness in males, then she considers that "good genes" and "masculine" and when she starts menstruating she shows increased preference for that trait.
You're trying to argue by using gymbro /fit/cel pseudoscience. My testosterone levels are higher than what they're supposed to be and yet I am interested in small men and large women. If you were to be pumped full of estrogen you wouldn't suddenly lose your sexual preferences or become gay you idiot.
If this is your reasoning then it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.12789347]

>>12783745
>Chad is just astetically pleasing to women, doesn't mean that he is genetically fit
Whether a man mates with females is the ONLY measure of genetic fitness which actually counts.

[Anonymous No.12789392]

>>12789347
Relative fitness and absolute fitness are different things. This has already been explained in this thread.
As an example, females of a species may be caught in a Fisherian runaway where they is so attracted to giant antlers that they sexually select for males to the point where their antlers are so fucking big that they can't even pick their heads up off the ground. Then the species gets completely wiped out from predators and goes extinct.
In this case, females sexual preferences are NOT FIT. The males they select for are NOT FIT in their environment. They are so unfit that female selection literally made their species go extinct.
This happens all the time Literally all the time. It's estimated that hundreds of species go extinct every day because of runaway sexual selection.

[Anonymous No.12789397]

>>12789392
We are talking about genetic fitness, not some subjective value judgement. If you fail to pass on your genes, your genes are a failure. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.12789419]

>>12789397
Yes, so a species going completely extinct because of unfit female selection means that they aren't passing on their genes anymore. That is not a subjective value judgement. If a species goes extinct, that is not subjective.
If you pass on your genes, and then all your children die, your genes are a failure. If females select for traits that render their species extinct, then the genes are a failure and the females selection are not fit and are a failure.

[Anonymous No.12789759]

>>12788543
>a reminder that throughout humans evolutionary history, tens of millions of babies were murdered, women were raped, men were forced to kill each other, everyone was starving.
So what? This is the way of life. There is no objective morality. Any individual intelligent enough to understand biology does not give a tiniest fuck about evolutionary history of a species when it comes to moral judgement.

[Anonymous No.12789815]

>>12789397
>>12789419
Who cares about objective success anyway ? We're subjects so it's only right to be subjective. Why should we want humanity to live on if we don't like the people they become ? If they somehow evolved into earthworms and overcame every other species in terms of biomass on the seven continents, while everything that I hold dear disappears, why should I be happy ?

[Anonymous No.12789883]

>>12789815
If it's all subjective, then my subjective preference to want to morph humanity into a bunch of cute shotas and tall thick amazon mommies isn't any less valid than anything else.
Why is male larger dimorphism more subjectively preferable than female larger dimorphism? You can say the preference is more common which it is, but you can't argue that it's inherently more subjectively preferable.

[Anonymous No.12789905]

>>12783804
Lie down on a hard surface and feel the orgasmic cracking of my back as my spine straightens

[Anonymous No.12789939]

>>12789883
I don't think your preference is invalid, but if there is in fact more subjective preferences for one thing, you can surely argue that it's inherently more subjectively preferable.

[Anonymous No.12789979]

>>12789939
So in that case, wouldn't the subjectivity just become a utilitarian function of the amount of people/organisms that objectively exist?
If the earthworms are just as subjectively happy as you are, but they completely dominate the biomass of the planet, then it is both objectively superior as well as subjectively more preferable.
If the female larger dimorphic humans enjoy being that way just as much as you enjoy it the way it is now, but they're able to live with less pollution and less domestic violence and superior population sizes and everything, then by your own logic isn't that inherently more subjectively preferable?

[Anonymous No.12789988]

>>12789397
>Isaac Newton was a failure

[Anonymous No.12790000]

>>12789988
yes a genetic failure. he might have been a nice looking smart fella but sexually he was a failure

[Anonymous No.12790004]

>>12789979
>isn't that inherently more subjectively preferable?
It would be if there was indeed more subjects preferring that than subjects preferring it otherwise. Which is not the case.

But I was just pointing this out to be pedantic. Just as your preference is valid, so is mine, and it's the only one I will have.

[Anonymous No.12790023]

>>12790000
The dude was one of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced you dumb nigger. And you're saying the genes that gave him superhuman intelligence were a failure?

[Anonymous No.12790032]

>>12790023
he didn't spread them, the ultimate purpose of all of this is for good genes to be spread and bad to be eliminated

[Anonymous No.12790080]

>>12790004
>It would be if there was indeed more subjects preferring that than subjects preferring it otherwise. Which is not the case.
That's the point. All of the advantages in terms of energy expenditure and population size etc., are not subjective, they are actual advantages that are physical and real. The subjective preferences can be modified and then there is no trouble.
What you're ultimately saying is that humanity should be worse off than it could be just because you don't want to get rid of your outdated preferences for large males (I can tell you're a woman). That's just selfish. It has no right to continue in my opinion.
>But I was just pointing this out to be pedantic. Just as your preference is valid, so is mine, and it's the only one I will have.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12790109]

>>12790080
>(I can tell you're a woman)
Lol. I don't know if I should be offended but that made me laugh.
>Why?
Cause it's mine.

[Anonymous No.12790133]

>>12783713
If you gain adaptative traits to conditions set by your enemies (competing organisms) that give them control over you and destroy the mechanisms you can use to fight back, thats the definition of parasitism.
If you select yourself to be parasited then thats dysgenic.

[Anonymous No.12790165]

>>12790109
Are you not a woman? I'm usually good at telling based on writing style.
>Cause it's mine.
You didn't choose to like what you like. So what difference does it make if we mold the future to like what is actually superior in terms of all the physical advantages outlined? Small males and large females are physically superior, that is not subjective. They use less resources and food (agriculture is one of the biggest uses of energy and pollution), tall thick (not fat, thick, you know what I'm talking about) women have an easier time giving birth, men can't really rape women anymore, the only advantage that large males have is rendered completely obsolete with the invention of weapons and firearms.
Let's assume it happens. Why do you care if human in the future are modeled after what I want rather than what you want? I happened to be blessed with a sexual preference that literally is superior. I didn't choose this either. But my vision still has more a right to exist than yours. And I don't see why you'd care either way.

[Anonymous No.12790188]

>>12790165
>Are you not a woman?
Nope.
>Why do you care if you don't get what you want?
Because I want it, duh.

[Anonymous No.12790192]

>>12785862
Ergo Chad getting laid == increasing the fitness of the species

[Anonymous No.12790198]

>>12790192
The chad of the future is the smallest cutest male.
Large ooga booga "chad" is a waste of food and energy, gets shot in the head, and is rendered obsolete.

[Anonymous No.12790214]

>>12790188
We're arguing about sexual preferences which obviously can't be right or wrong.
What can be right or wrong is efficiency and optimization. Large males and small females are less efficient and are not optimized. Males being small and eating less and females being big and having higher fecundity are more efficient. There is a reason female larger dimorphism completely dominates the animal kingdom where male larger dimorphism is seen in <2% of species.
I don't know what else to say about this.

[Anonymous No.12790714]

>>12790023
If the biggest dick porn star never had kids he would also be considered a genetic/sexual failure

[Anonymous No.12790734]

>>12790080
>if all the males cut their balls off and stopped going to the gym the sky over Beijing would clear
this is what a shota coomer actually believes

[Anonymous No.12790916]

>>12783676
>born
There won't be a single alive human by then.

[Anonymous No.12790928]

>>12784857
Damn.

[Anonymous No.12790935]

>>12788413
>tfw no giant robot hivemind gf

[Anonymous No.12790938]

>>12788983
Try telling Minoa that.
Matriarchies are notorious for being suicidal over time.
Which is why everything is so fucked today.

[Anonymous No.12791027]

>>12783691
I'm not sure these contradict. "Dysgenic" often just means that fertility correlates negatively with IQ which itself has a general heritability of 0.75. Do "Chads" have higher IQ? Also, "Chad" is defined by a certain look (bone structure, etc.), and also females with any gene set can reproduce if they want to (even females whose genes would render them "incel").

[Anonymous No.12791365]

>>12790734
>cut off their balls
Where are you getting that?

[Anonymous No.12792588]

>>12783676
>what would the average human born in the year 2500 look like
filled with tubes and their consciousness living in a fantasy world while the omnipotent governments siphon their semen and other bodily fluids for vampire rave parties

[Anonymous No.12793817]

>>12783691
based

[Anonymous No.12793856]

>>12792588
based

[Anonymous No.12794357]

>>12789239
Killing yourself is only treating the symptom when the genes that made you are out there in the population