/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15423212]

Evolutionary biology of humans

>women havent received evolutionary pressure is about 5000 years with the start of the first and before that were under less pressure too
>men were under pressure to be intelligent and rational
>civilisations would domesticate their population, making them dumber and weaker: India, Islamic regions, China, Japan,
This usually follows a cycle:
>Intelligent men dominate neighbouring civilisations/stability is achieved/intelligent people are culled/stable civilisation exists
Ill go over the exceptions:
>Africa
Animals evolved alongside humans, so animal domestication and civilisation was impossible. Elephants and lions for example learned to stay in groups because that is their strength. Every other continents large animals could not adapt quickly enough to humans and went extinct
As a result Africans stayed in tribe. The irony is that because they are civilised, they are actually more intelligent. they have social mechanism which prevent them from being dominated by a group of elite, but this is changing.

Right now with globalisation we are in the process of the final step: the blending of all civilisations, the removal off the excess of intelligent individuals so everyone will become slaves except a small group of elite.
There is no way to stop this. If you remove one group, another will take its place.

[Anonymous No.15423229]

>>15423212
further exceptions:
>The inuit
I dont know much about them, I assume the situation is similar to Africans.

How you can actually study the phenomena:
We cant go back in history so instead you have to rely on models. Logically consider the outcomes of certain traits and mechanics in groups of people, and you will find answers that are verified in reality.

The process is true for literally all civilisations in history. Some faster or slower than others.
For example:
>Islam
was founded on a golden age, then went into "decline" as they domesticated everyone
>Roman empire:
Long lasting but ultimately succumbed to its own domestication process
>Spartans:
Highly intelligent group. Practised eugenics early. Theres written records of them intentionally culling intelligent members of the Helots they enslaved.
>Greeks:
Much like the spartans, not a severe decline, rather they were swallowed into later empires and then gradually subjected to domestication
>China
Still studying them. Similar process to what happened in Europe, but much earlier, and somehow less successful at eradicating the intelligent

[Anonymous No.15423242]

>>15423229
cont.

>Japan:
Domestication started extremely early. They de-domesticated themselves at the end of the 1800s rapidly, but it was too late. The Japanese language carries a lot of traces of this process, as like Chinese it has the unique feature of preserving its history in the characters.
>India
Perhaps one of the most domesticated civilisations, but the process here was so extreme that even its ruling classes were extremely dumbed down.
>Russia
Russia was domesticated long ago but the Mongol invasions culled the weaker rulers and de-domesticated them. The Mongols made the weaker states fight each others and then would conquer the weakened victor. Almost all of them fell for this.
>Latin Europe
golden age followed by domestication and decline, perhaps to an extreme extent. Culling by muslim invasions strengthened them.
>Germanic Europe
Started the domestication process extremely late, and as such had an intelligence advantage over other nations.
Now in the process of domestication by jews.

[Anonymous No.15423255]

The main point: War strengthens groups.
On a large scale, war will cull the unintelligent from a population. Continues war means only the smarter survive. Civilizations without conflicts with equal tribes are weakened in intelligence, as the dumb out reproduce the intelligent.
A smart individual allocates the maximum amount of resources to themselves. A weaker group will be conquered. Dumber people live in smaller groups, are less successful at extracting resources from their environment, less successful at combat. This isnt with 100% accuracy of course. some intelligent groups simply didnt have enough time to grow and conquer their neighbours, they were subdued before becoming a threat.

Because of globalisation, advances in technology, there is no need for smart individuals anymore in the eyes of our masters. As such, humanity will be domesticated completely and we will "witness" an evolutionary split between the elite and the weak.

Its not all peaches and cream for the elite either though, they will fight amongst themselves till eventually only a few, or one, elite remains, with total control over everyone and everything. This will be "God".

[Anonymous No.15423265]

Perhaps another notable thing that seperates Europeans from other civilisations: The extent to which they lie

All religions and other domestication social structures preach the same basic principles, do as told, reproduce, dont do anything that could disrupt the power structure.
All of them.

However, unique among Christianity and its off-shoots is that its western followers always believed with the idea of "but I'll make an exception for me, and god will forgive me"
so basically nobody really followed the rules, which should've domesticated them. Perhaps this was because they had dumb rulers. Perhaps it was environmental factors, too much conflict to perfect the process.

[Anonymous No.15423366]

learn how to speak english, schizo

[Anonymous No.15423385]

this is the worst thread i've read today

[Anonymous No.15423403]

Interesting theory OP. I could agree in some points.

[Anonymous No.15423517]

Intelligent people don't use violence to resolve conflicts. Intelligent people resolve conflicts through logic and reason by extrapolating equilibrium positions in infinite games. So game theoretically violent conflict is actually counterproductive because every single development that makes life easier could have been invented without any conflict whatsoever. The scientific and theoretical development of the technology could happen simply by peacetime research and development.

Your theory doesn't account for the lack of logic in civilizational decline because you believe conflict is what leads to progress when it is the exact opposite, conflict leads to decline and collapse.

In an advanced global civilization there are no intergroup conflicts that are resolved with violence because that would mean that civilization wasn't actually very advanced, tautologically.

[Anonymous No.15423612]

>>15423517
They dont ude direct violence because it makes your enemies anxious and more likely to resist you
Instead they seek peaceful removal of direct threats. For example, Napoleon was banished twice, never executed or tortured.
Or the Spartans, who were so cruel to their enemies and subjects it scare the other Greeks into allying themselves to defeat them.

However to destroy an enemies empire they dont mind using violence. A populace is an asset, and by destroying it you weaken them and achieve the desired result if they can get away with it
Violence is always the answer if they can get away with it.

[Anonymous No.15423632]

>>15423612
Like I said, an advanced civilization would not need violence as a deterrent
> https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=money+does+not+exist+in+the+future&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8rh3xPatEto

[Anonymous No.15423641]

>>15423632
sorry but how can you be this stupid?
Ultimately violence is the strongest form of control one has.
Theres rules, and if you dont follow them you will ultimately be subjected to violence.

Enemies are to be eliminated. The Russians, Chinese and US dont settle things over a friendly debate.

furthermore, ultimately, there is really no "right" answer to anything, because it all depends on perspective. So even if they all followed logical debates and were honest, the different perspectives would never lead to an equal outcome.

[Anonymous No.15423652]

>>15423641
Calm down chud. I'm just telling you how an advanced global civilization operates. In any advanced society there is no mass violence because mass violence is for retards. Your own analysis proves, every violent civilization has gone extinct.

[Anonymous No.15423657]

>>15423652
yes Chud, because eventually they dont have to use violence anymore, but violence is the tool they use to get there.

you literally argued that they use "logics" instead of violence
have you ever gone outside or opened a history book?

[Anonymous No.15423671]

>>15423657
Every single civilization that used violence to create progress went extinct. If you think more violence is going to work again then you're retarded, progress is possible without violence, tautologically so. Think about it, you know I'm right.

[Anonymous No.15423678]

>>15423671
lol
lmao even
Every civilization that didnt use violence went extinct much faster
The use of non violence is only possible after the use of violence, thus ultimately, it is the result of violence.

Look at nature, pacifists go extinct or are enslaved insects with no free will or control of anything in their life

[Anonymous No.15423689]

>>15423678
if you think conflict leads to progress then the best thing you can do is become a terrorist. put your principles to practice. logically, if violence is good then more violence is better.

bruv, next time bring better arguments because right now you are failing extremely hard. it's painful for me to continue this conversation because every scientific breakthrough could have been achieved without conflict and mass violence. this is tautologically true. no prerequisite for scientific and engineering breakthrough ever required the death of young men, women, and children as blood sacrifice, to think so is beyond retarded and is essentially chimp logic. you should go back to the jungle and live a happy life as a roaming chimp that just rapes and murders

[Anonymous No.15423693]

>>15423689
>no prerequisite for scientific and engineering breakthrough ever required the death of young men, women, and children as blood sacrifice,
you have to be trolling, its impossible that youre this retarded

look at the foundation of the literally any state, the answer is violence.
violence is good, its the dosage that we should argue over.


>If you think crayons are a good answer than why dont you eat crayons all days and night
wow, solid logic anon. Your black-and-white thinking in extremes really highlights your incredible intellectual power

[Anonymous No.15423701]

>>15423693
you said conflict and mass violence leads to progress. logically, terrorism creates conflict and mass violence which in your theory is required for progress. you could be remembered in history books as the first retard to logically convince yourself of your own retardation.

there is a very basic principle of logic that most people don't seem to grasp. if you think a rule makes sense then logically, to achieve whatever outcome your logic entails, you must, necessarily, act in accordance with those principles. That's logic.

[Anonymous No.15423702]

>>15423212
Wrong, it's the lack of lead in diet. Civs rised when lead when lead was mined and fell once it got depleted. All the "modern people" with small faces are following whatever event began this era by depleting earth's surface of metals.
>Every other continents large animals could not adapt quickly enough to humans and went extinct
They went extinct for the same reason, they got malnourished and their bones got too weak.

[Anonymous No.15423709]

>>15423701
>still has not a single counterargument
>completely ignores the plethora of evidence in history
solid evidence chap, you truly come across as someone who has achieved intellectual enlightment

>you must do what you believe
why? I have no interest in changing the system, but if I wanted to I would use violence.
I can tell you that you can put out fires better with sand than with water without having to go to literally every fire to apply my theory.

Youre a brainlet. If youre not a troll you should euthanize yourself for the good the masses

[Anonymous No.15423712]

>>15423517
Wrong. Intelligent people avoid violence by avoiding situations that would lead to violence. "I'm going to be a raging maniac and you can't do anything with that becauae using violence would make you low IQ" is not intelligent.
Any game theoretic model that disagreed with this turned out to be fake. Even basic tit for tat requires retaliation when betrayed. The violence must come when the attempt to avoid it as above is unsuccessful, or not made, you get steamrolled by actors who simply don't give a fuck and don't even try to avoid it, and rely on the violence not coming.

[Anonymous No.15423723]

>>15423709
Why would I care about history when I have logic? It's way better to demolish a theory with logic because logic can not be subverted by appeals to fallacious reasoning like what is "true" historically because what is true historically is a bunch of retards flinging rocks at each other because they couldn't figure out how to grow enough food.

Progress is possible without conflict and violence but it requires smarter people. Your theory is about retarded civilizations, a truly advanced civilization is not coercive because the people are smart enough to act in accordance with principles that advance the common good

[Anonymous No.15423726]

>>15423723
The problem isn't my logic, the problem is that most people are retarded and can't imagine any other way of resolving conflicts other than violence

[Anonymous No.15423727]

>>15423723
the evidence points out that your logic is flawed.
The images you post contradict what you are saying

You seem to have adjusted your argument:
>progress is possible without violence
that is correct.

[Anonymous No.15423736]

>>15423727
I didn't adjust anything. That was the claim all the way at the beginning of the thread. Civilizations collapse because of conflict and succeed insofar as they manage to suppress it peacefully.

[Anonymous No.15423742]

>>15423723
>>15423736
That's fucking bullshit. Even western civilization had duels until less than a century ago to deal with those to whom logic did not apply.

[Anonymous No.15423745]

>>15423742
Western civilization isn't very advanced and that's precisely why it is collapsing

[Anonymous No.15423748]

>>15423736
then you should also recognise that they grow because of conflict.
Im going to post an extremely simplified process:
>tribes exist
>tribes compete (violence) to grow in size and subjugate
>process repeats itself with towns, cities, states, any form of groups
>the group reaches a size where growth becomes difficult (reasons are arbitrary)
>the civilisation grows in population
>[domestication occurs]
>they decline
>eventually this decline reaches a pressure point so great that it explodes into violence

basically your assumption can coexist within my theory. The only thing I added is the domestication view as a reason.
And you ignore that societies achieve growth/power primarily through violence to begin with.

I shouldve added the vikings btw:
>Vikings
population growth leads to resource scarcity, oversupply of young men with no real chance to obtain land/wives
they invade neighboring regions and create colonies extremely successfully
they take all the pretty wives
domestication process occurs
they decline, and eventually collapse.

[Anonymous No.15423752]

>>15423745
It's collapsing because was forced to accept your bullshit non coercive system, and is being overrun by people who are blatantly unreasonable.
What you claim is itself a fallacy. It isn't that you can't solve anything with reason. It's that people can just openly ignore reason and make civilization impossible.

[Anonymous No.15423755]

>>15423745
It's collapsing because it was forced to accept your bullshit non coercive system, and is being overrun by people who are blatantly unreasonable.
What you claim is itself a fallacy. It isn't that you can't solve anything with reason. It's that people can just openly ignore reason and make civilization impossible.

[Anonymous No.15423775]

>>15423755
Good luck to solving your problems with violence. I'd say it won't make a difference but retards never listen to wise advice so the people that think they're going to shoot their way to a solution for their problems should maybe reconsider how exactly bullets are going to reduce their problems instead of increasing them.

[Anonymous No.15423783]

>>15423212
How do you propose all nations will unite as one? In just Chinese history the country has been divided and united so many times. This trend is common of all countries. It seems unreasonable to believe that all nations will unite as one global entity any time soon.

[Anonymous No.15423793]

>>15423783
>any time soon
correct, it will take a few centuries most likely, unless they just genocide most of the population in armed global conflict, but I dont think that will happen personally, its too risky and unpredictable.

How it will happen:

Think of yourself as a ruler:
Ideally you dont have governers generals, politicians, and so forth, but they are a necessary risk because you cant travel to every place to make the decisions yourself, and you dont have the resources to see that it is applied effectively.

Now we have technology. Exerting ones will can be done with greater accuracy than ever before. You can see to it that it is applied with great accuracy.
Thus you can remove remove these people. Eventually you reach a point where you automate everything, everyone has virtually no power and has to do your bidding and you make all the important decisions. Probably at first we will just see a regression in the amount of powerful individuals as power concentrates itself to less and less people.

I know this may sound a bit fantastical at this point, but it is inevitably, just not in our lifetime.

[Anonymous No.15423801]

>>15423775
Then you must provide abother option to deal wirh unreasonable people. Otherwise sooner or pater peopke will be left with two options:
go along with the insanity and die
fight violently against the insane

[Anonymous No.15423802]

>>15423801
>>>15423775
Then you must provide another option to deal with unreasonable people. Otherwise sooner or later people will be left with two options:
>go along with the insanity and die
>fight violently against the insane

[Anonymous No.15423813]

>>15423802
I don't have to provide anything. I'm presenting a logical case for why violence is an absurd way to solve any problem and is an indicator of societal decline. Civilized people solve their problems without resorting to violence.

[Anonymous No.15423817]

>>15423813
You're a retard. You understand it the wrong way round.

[Anonymous No.15423822]

>>15423813
Inflamnation is also an indicator of trouble, but supressing is a bad idea, because then you get AIDS. On the contrary, you want a response strong enough that it can supress problems before they become severe.

[Anonymous No.15423825]

>>15423813
Inflammation is also an indicator of trouble, but supressing it is a bad idea, because then you get AIDS. On the contrary, you want a response strong enough that it can supress problems before they become severe.

[Anonymous No.15424460]

>>15423825
Only retards compare civilization to a biological organism. Rules and laws have nothing to do with biology, they are symbolic forces that shape behavior. In all successful civilization biological drives like violence are suppressed. This is what civilization is good for, peaceful suppression of violence. Civilizations collapse when their institutions can no longer serve as peacekeepers. This is all very obvious and violent conflict is a symptom of collapse, not vitality. Russia is currently collapsing, same with US. Violence, mental illness, crime, political polarization, wealth inequality, &etc. are all indicators of civilizational vitality and all indicators are currently trending in the wrong direction.

I will repeat, your theory has the causality and chain of events backwards. All civilizations which failed to suppress violence failed and delayed inevitable progress that would have happened during peacetime. This is all basic logic.

[Anonymous No.15424498]

>>15424460
First off, thats not me, classical mistake to assume everyone is the same person.
All laws and rules, all sociological fields are a direct result of human biology, this is indisputable.

Again I'll repeat what I said earlier: Your claim does not contradict my theory.
It doesn't change the fact that they use violence to gain power and grow, and they use they use violence to suppress those lower than them, at the very least initially, but so far in all of history, throughout a civilisations lifespan.
The fact that overall violence has decreased by rule of law and order, does not change the fact that it is violence which grants them authority.

Most civilisations dont end in violence. Its usually a slow decline, which may experience increased violence, but there is no genocide or war. Those usually happen when a civilization expands.

You are clearly not well versed in history, or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[Anonymous No.15424515]

>>15424460
That's bullshit.
First, it's about removing harmful elements.
Second, violence is not being supressed, it's unnecessary. Harmful elements are succesfully supressed, so that the reasons for violence are next to nil.
The suppression of violence is already a failure mode, there is a major problem that isn't being dealt with.

You have it the wrong way round. Violence occurs when civilizations fail. There is a less visible period when violence is supressed, but no actual solution is found.

[Anonymous No.15424519]

>>15424498
History is not a useful guide for the future if you actually want progress. Historically suppression of interpersonal violent conflict is suppressed by violent enforcers of state rules and regulations, i.e. suppression of violent conflict in order to allow for peaceful economic development. Human civilization is now at the point where large scale mass violence is counterproductive and will accelerate the inevitable decline of stable societies. You can continue arguing the historical angle but it is not relevant to the current time period and problems. Logically, violence never solves any problems that could not have been solved in another way if people were smarter. So if you believe progress requires mass scale violence and conflict then to act in accordance with your principles and values you must, necessarily, agitate for violent resolutions. Terrorism and military service are good options for someone that believes violence solves problems and leads to progress. This is all basic logic.

[Anonymous No.15424535]

>>15424519
>History is not a useful guide for the future if you actually want progress.
It offers a prediction.
I think in the future there will be almost no violence, and it will be awful, because we'll all be living under a totalitarian regime who monitors everything, so the only violence will be between the elite or from the elite towards its subjects.

Youre also completing missing the point with that comment: My theory explains the evolution of states

>Logically, violence never solves any problems that could not have been solved in another way if people were smarter.
Yes, and logically, everyone would share the same resources equally, nobody would lie and cheat, and we'd never be mean to each other.
Thats not reality. Humanity is built on war. Our closest ancestors and violent and wage wars too.

You have to seperate your idealism from reality.

[Anonymous No.15424540]

>>15424535
And I'm telling you that anyone with half a brain can look at history and conclude that violence never leads to progress but some retard has decided that their theory of violent state foundations is somehow a coherent organizing principle of civilizations. The causality chain is backwards, civilizations progress when there is no violence and decline otherwise. Basic logic. There is nothing idealistic about this, it's realism.

[Anonymous No.15424547]

>>15424540
>And I'm telling you that anyone with half a brain can look at history and conclude that violence never leads to progress
thats a brainlet take. This is literally mental retardation tier levels stupid.

EVERY civilisation is built on violence. Literally every single on. Authority is gained through violence, power is gained through violence. Without violence they wouldve ever been able to establish authority and grow their empire.

How do you think the establishment of a civilisation is any way peaceful and non violent? Explain it. Do you think people just get together and go like "you can be the elite ruling class who forces us to work 12 hours a day 7 days of the week while you enjoy luxury and we live with farm animals in small houses"

Youre in hardcore denial of reality. How many levels of coping are you on right now?

[Anonymous No.15424551]

>>15424519
>Historically suppression of interpersonal violent conflict is suppressed by violent enforcers of state rules and regulations
I think that never was historically common, it was some monarch or other elite that had the last word.
The strict rule of law is a bad idea, as it impossible to ensure that the law will be just in every context, and tge laws may end up supressing goid things, and protecting bad things. You need someone with reason who is above the law who can prevent it from turning into an inhuman machinery.
>Logically, violence never solves any problems that could not have been solved in another way if people were smarter.
It doesn't seem to logically follow in any way, and people are often stupid.

[Anonymous No.15424610]

>>15424551
Like I said, good luck to solving your problems with violence.

[Anonymous No.15424822]

>>15424610
yeah, violence has only the been answer in literally everything in human history
Might makes right after all
dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.15424828]

>>15424822
NTA but were you bullied in high school?

[Anonymous No.15424831]

>>15424828
How is highschool relevant to this topic. Fuck off with your off topic garbo

[Anonymous No.15424872]

>>15424828
Seriously? You think it's an argument for you? How many bullies do you think there would be if you were allowed to beat them up?

[Anonymous No.15425288]

>>15424822
good luck with that

[Anonymous No.15425790]

>>15424828
NTA but I'm regularly bullied right here on 4cheddit