/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4948548]

How do you think people will evolve?
>People will begin using technology to do even menial tasks for them. thus eventually the human body becomes frail weak shell of our ancestors.
>As we stop using our bodies more and more we begin to lose our eyebrows since they were once used to keep sweat from getting into our eyes.
>I think we will keep our thumbs since they are a valuable tools for creating other tools. Maybe even new fingers will be added so that we can handle different types of tools.
>As we begin using more thermodynamic clothes the hair disappears entirely over time.
>I don't think we will be necessarily grey, as races merge more and more. Majority of us will probably be a dark color.
>INB4 we'll all be niggers.
>Our noses will be more jew like eventually.
>Our immune systems will be weak with the advent of new medicines
>Maybe with advances in technology we could alter how traits are inherited.
Please tell me how any of this could be wrong or how you can support it. I'm open to opinions please be civil.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948566]

>>People will begin using technology to do even menial tasks for them. thus eventually the human body becomes frail weak shell of our ancestors.
yes, probably. we'll end up looking like those weakling alien fucks from war of the worlds with shitty spindly arms. pic related, if i can find it.

>>As we stop using our bodies more and more we begin to lose our eyebrows since they were once used to keep sweat from getting into our eyes.
probably not, we'll still sweat, i reckon.

>>I think we will keep our thumbs since they are a valuable tools for creating other tools. Maybe even new fingers will be added so that we can handle different types of tools.
probably not new fingers, 4 fingers and a thumb works great for holding pretty much anything.

>>As we begin using more thermodynamic clothes the hair disappears entirely over time.
maybe not entirely. but yeh, probably will be less. we'll still keep nose hair, for example.

>>I don't think we will be necessarily grey, as races merge more and more. Majority of us will probably be a dark color.
yeh, probably. some blend of all the current races. except small groups who choose not to breed in isolation, there probably will be a few.

>>Our noses will be more jew like eventually.
wat?

>Our immune systems will be weak with the advent of new medicines
i suppose so, yeh.

>>Maybe with advances in technology we could alter how traits are inherited.
like designer babies? if so, then loads of the other things on the list might not happen. we would strengthen our immune systems, for example.

[Anonymous No.4948570]

you realize it's gotta be thousands and thousands of years to start seeing the first changes right?

[Anonymous No.4948574]

>>4948566
shitposting and pseudointellectualism at its finest

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948582]

>>4948574
oooh! meow!
someones a grumpy grunter this morning

>I'm open to opinions please be civil. - OP

[Anonymous No.4948588]

Well anon, you're suggestion we'll evolve through natural selection AND with our ever advancing technology.

Since gene manipulation will probably become very common in the future, it's hard to tell what we'll actually be like. So really, any assumption is right (or wrong if your a pessimist)

[Anonymous No.4948591]

>>4948570

And it's only going to be decades before we start seeing cybernetic replacements.

No, OP, we won't "evolve" in a biological sense. Transhumanism is the most likely outcome, barring any natural catastrophes destroying all of civilization.
Advancing beyond a flawed primate body, replacing organs with more sensitive and capable devices.
It's pretty logical that the end of a technology-using life-form's progression ends with the form of a brain (either organic or artificial itself) inside a Utility Fog, taking whatever shape it pleases.

[Anonymous No.4948592]

I don't understand how that type of evolution would take place without survival of the fittest being part of the equation. Because of civilization it's no longer the case that only those people most well adapted for their environment will survive long enough to reproduce. The one form of natural selection that is still in play to some small extent is sexual selection. The people for whom it is the easiest to get laid are the most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. This means that even if one persons body is less energy hungry and they can get through life on less food, which would be good if natural selection were in play, someone who's tall and muscular is more likely to have kids in most cases. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.4948604]

>>4948592

Confirmed for having no idea what "fittest" means in "survival of the fittest".

>Because of civilization it's no longer the case that only those people most well adapted for their environment will survive long enough to reproduce

No, it just means the bar for "adaption" was altered, and no longer about being a big strong hunter.

>The people for whom it is the easiest to get laid are the most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation.

Any man can donate their sperm to a sperm bank.


"Fittest" has nothing to do with being physically fit. It means fitting into the environment around you. When civilization allows us to shape the environment around us willingly, the definition of "fittest" molds.

The entire goddamn point of civilization, and the reason humans are the single most successful mammal on the planet, is that we have gotten intelligent enough to choose what fitness our environment requires of us. (Not 100%, of course, as the biosphere will change with or without our influence, but we're working on controlling that too.)

[Anonymous No.4948610]

>>4948591
I am the end of a technological evolution.

[Anonymous No.4948614]

To all of that, no because sexual selection.
Do you really want a jew nosed, balding pansy with grey skin as a boyfriend? Hell no, don't be an idiot

[Anonymous No.4948617]

>>4948548
Eh, soon we'll be part of the Imperium, and looking after oneself will be law. We'll just get more and more of our better traits and less and less of our worse.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948618]

>>4948614
sexual selection becomes redundant if designer babies become mainstream.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4948623]

>>4948618
To an extent, sexual selection will then favor those with the capacity to employ the service of aforementioned genetic engineering. Therefore said technology becomes the catalyst for a social and physiological evolutionary event of sorts.

Nature doesn't really care how it achieves balance, simply that it attains it.

[Anonymous No.4948629]

>>4948618
Ahem.
And when you're designing your baby you'll design him to be a weak, jewnosed, greyskinned kid with male pattern baldness?
You sadistic whore, I pity your children

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948631]

>>4948623
nature has no will at all. balance is intrinsic.

>sexual selection will then favor those with the capacity to employ the service of aforementioned genetic engineering.
eventually it'l be cheap, widespread, and available to everyone. it's just a matter of time.
cars were once an incredible rarity, now everyone has one (or 2 or 3, in a lot of cases)

same with all new tech

[Anonymous No.4948632]

>>4948604
No matter what kind of adaption might make you more likely to survive in a world with high technology, modern societies don't just let people die off who aren't well adapted for the modern world. You take drugs or have medical procedures, and short of severe physical deformities or mental retardation, pretty much EVERYONE born into a civilized society survives long enough to reproduce. You can live long enough to reproduce with a heart that couldn't beat on its own. So how does survival of the fittest, no matter what fittest means, work in that kinf of environment? Also, the good sperm banks only take sperm from healthy people with college degrees.

[Anonymous No.4948634]

>>4948623
You're implying that we will still have a capitalistic society when designer babies are possible.

[Anonymous No.4948639]

>>4948629
You could simply eliminate sexual attraction altogether. It wouldn't be necessary.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948642]

>>4948629
nah, i answered OP without the genetic engineering in mind, until i came to the last point.

>like designer babies? if so, then loads of the other things on the list might not happen. we would strengthen our immune systems, for example. - EK

even if i concieve naturally, my kids will be alpha as fuck.
if i can genetically improve them, a few slight tweaks here and there, then i certainly will (its unlikely the father will be as perfect as i am, so the kids will need tweaking a little)

[Anonymous No.4948644]

>>4948639
>Eliminate sexual attraction
>suddenly society crumbles from lack of motivation
You're attempting to restart that other transhumanist thread aren't you?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948645]

>>4948639
not necessary for reproduction, no.
obviously we'll keep it just for pleasure. theres no reason to remove it.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948648]

>>4948644
people have motivation even without sexual attraction.
asexuals still get outta bed in the morning and do shit.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4948652]

>>4948631
>Nature has no will.
Of course not, no need to state the obvious, especially considering i didn't imply such things. I gave inclination as to my understanding of natures intuitive tendencies to express potential. Or put simply, allow for the greatest chance of survival. And genetic engineering would be a massive step forward, biologically, in our species history. However, the the ethics behind its usage are what seems to be in conflict.

And blah blah, etc. etc.

>>4948634
Im implying that it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.4948654]

>>4948648
Thats attributed to the instinct of wanting to belong.

But asexuals typically want to have children though they may not enjoy sex.

[Anonymous No.4948655]

We won't evolve anymore in natural way. Genetics will allow us to modify our own genome and project the changes. Imagine genetic fashions, like trend for 3 arms or 4 legs, when 2 heads becomes too mainstream people go for 3rd sex, etc.

[Anonymous No.4948658]

>>4948645
>obviously we'll keep it just for pleasure.
why would we need it for pleasure? We could have artificial ways of getting pleasure.
>>4948644
>>Eliminate sexual attraction
>>suddenly society crumbles from lack of motivation
to reproduce? there is a good economic incentive to reproduce, reproducing just for pleasure isn't a good reason and can lead to overpopulation.

[Anonymous No.4948664]

>>4948658
>reproducing just for pleasure isn't a good reason and can lead to overpopulation
Animals don't need a reason to reproduce, they do it because theres an urge to and it feels good. (spoiler: Humans are animals)
Also, we are becoming overpopulated.

[Anonymous No.4948673]

>>4948655
>mfw furries will become a reality

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948675]

>>4948658
>why would we need it for pleasure? We could have artificial ways of getting pleasure.
we already do; recreational drugs. booze, etc.
theres no reason you cant have both
even full on drug-heads like getting laid.

apparently theres some kind of 'orgasm in a pill' that feels exactly as good as sex, but it's probably just a myth.

[Anonymous No.4948681]

>>4948673
Nah.
Do you really think people would allow you to permanently mutilate your children so that they fufill your perverted fantasies?
Such radical changes would likely be made illegal and be considered horrible child abuse

[Anonymous No.4948682]

Eventually, technology will advance to the point where totally realistic Real Dolls will be created.

These dolls will be skilled in bed, virgin tight (replacement vaginas available), and always willing.

Children will be seen as wastes of time / careers. Only the poor who can't afford these dolls will breed.

In short, niggers.

[Anonymous No.4948686]

>>4948681
There will probably be movements to allow people to do whatever they want with their children and they'll claim that the child is an "extension of my body."

But I was talking about people making those modifications to themselves.

[Anonymous No.4948689]

>>4948673
It might cause wars, chaos, genetic regimes trying to force the "best form", genetic rebels like cultural ones. It may change the planet into one big pandemonium.
Also genetic will allow to "grow" machinery instead of building it. Like using bacteria for producing computers, It already happens. When even our habitat will become organic, like houses, furniture, machines, even living mobiles, we may eventually merge with them and loose identity as species.
[spoiler]And that's how Zerg has born

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4948692]

>>4948682
The lower your IQ within a specific bracket and barring you aren't retarded, the higher your chances of having more than two children.

High IQ families have less children and so dumb people are overpopulating the planet. In short, what this guy said.

[Anonymous No.4948694]

>>4948682
What a terrible imagination you have.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948698]

>>4948682
they'd still just be a very high tech fleshlight/dildo. i dont think any fucking doll would ever be realistic enough to be convincing.

[Anonymous No.4948701]

Why does everyone keep thinking that capitalism will survive into the future?

[Anonymous No.4948702]

>>4948682
You're obviously too young to understand why people have children.
It's another desire, separate from sex drive

[Anonymous No.4948707]

>>4948682
Why would the poor have kids? There is such a thing as birth control. And there are reasons to have kids other than for the pleasure of sex.

[Anonymous No.4948709]

>>4948698
If we can create designer babies then we'll be able to create subservient humans.

There won't be a need for sexbots. There will probably humans bred for slavery. They'll want nothing more than to be commanded and used.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948712]

>>4948707
>Why would the poor have kids? There is such a thing as birth control.
hahahahha
so naive...

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948715]

>>4948709
>If we can create designer babies then we'll be able to create subservient humans.
able to, yeah. doesnt mean people will. people get all ethical about that shit.

breeding sex slaves might be kinda frowned upon.

[Anonymous No.4948716]

>>4948709
>There will probably humans bred for slavery. They'll want nothing more than to be commanded and used.

[Anonymous No.4948719]

Dumb people have the most children, so they are the fittest right now.

[Anonymous No.4948724]

>>4948715
You're to stuck in todays current way of thinking.

We have enslaved each other for all of human history, directly or indirectly. While direct slavery is looked down upon, it still happens, even in the U.S.

If it becomes illegal in the future, it will still happen.
I don't think it will because whenever humans want to enslave other outright, they create the necessary justifications for it. People of the future will probably think "its free labor and they WANT to do it"

[Anonymous No.4948725]

>>4948712
I think the only people to have undesired children would be uneducated people not necessarily poor people.

[Anonymous No.4948728]

>>4948725
Being poor means you lack the resources to afford quality education. Sure, it doesn't mean everyone poor will be dumb, but a majority will be.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948729]

>>4948724
maybe, but i reckon the future will steer towards far MORE moralfaggotry, rather than less of it.

[Anonymous No.4948730]

>>4948724
This, If it can be done, It will be, just because. XXth century taught us that especially.
If such designed sex slave desires to be slave is it ethical to go against it's desires. Is it ethical to let human follow desires programmed by mindless nature? What makes their desires worse? Ethics will get more problematic with that.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948735]

>>4948730
they'd only desire it because you create them to be like that. moral conundrum would still stand.

>hurr durr, mind control, nazi's, playing god, abusing human life etc.

[Anonymous No.4948741]

>>4948729
Morals are subjective.
They can be changed to suit a societies desires.


It may be immoral to deny a sexslave's wish to have sex. Afterall, they're bred for it and it might make them suicidal if you reject them.

[Anonymous No.4948745]

>>4948735
this guy here >>4948741
you can negate my last sentence, but the first two still stand.

[Flibble !Prb3WfhoI6 No.4948747]

We'll take control over our evolution, it will be a positive feedback loop, this generation will build upon nature, the next generation will have high intelligence and can improve upon nature, the next will all be tall muscular savants and will probably design something that surpasses humanity which will in turn develop into an entirely new form of life.

[Anonymous No.4948749]

>>4948735
We have our desires only because we were created like that too. What makes them different than us, they feel pleasure and satisfaction, we too. Even more, imagine workslaves addicted to work. Would it be moral to lock them out and force to rest even If they would suffer?
Normal "human" will lose it's meaning, If you can program pleasure to anything and make people happy, show me, who is suffering in here. And don't compare your desires to theirs, it's only your subjective self taking yourself as objective model of "all humans" you will be called close-minded and racist. Let slaves be slaves, let workers work.
You see? I still don't see it as good, but ethics based on our old values will become outdated and unreasonable. That's more scary than those changes in genetic code.

[Anonymous No.4948752]

>>4948709
>There will probably humans bred for slavery. They'll want nothing more than to be commanded and used.
I guess it just depends if it is more efficient to use humans or robots. Maybe they will eventually become one and the same.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948755]

>>4948741
>Morals are subjective.
true, but some are universal (well, for almost everyone)
like, hardly anybody desires to be murdered, raped, stolen from, tortured, etc.

>It may be immoral to deny a sexslave's wish to have sex.
haha, not really. like i said, you created them that way, and THAT is considered the immoral part. also you could just as well have said:
>It may be immoral to deny a HUMANS wish to have sex.
which can be interpreted as justifying rape

>oh shit, they wanna do it, it'd be immoral to not bend over and take it, afterall 'they're bred for it and it might make them suicidal if you reject them.'

[Anonymous No.4948760]

>>4948755
They won't be universal then. One want to be raped, one not.

[Anonymous No.4948766]

ITT:
>Our economic system will carry into the future
>Our morals will carry into the future

Dat naivety.

[Anonymous No.4948768]

>>4948755
Germany was once convinced that it was alright to massacre 6 million people.

Before that, countless wars where people patted themselves on the back for killing entire towns and raping and torturing the women/children.

Morals are subjective. They change with every generation.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948771]

>>4948760
>want to be raped
lel, does not compute.

also, that aint what you were saying before.

also, presumably these newly created humans are made to be damn hot, so you'd wanna fuck 'em purely for physical reasons, but that doesnt mean you actually LIKE them, so its not like its someone you'd have a relationship with, you'd just be using it as some fucking subhuman masturbatory aid.

maybe for guys, thats all you'd need to be satisfied.
fems need more.

[Anonymous No.4948773]

>>4948771
>fems need more.
until we breed that out of them

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948775]

>>4948768
>Germany was once convinced that it was alright to massacre 6 million people.
hah, not all of germany. no way.
you think the civies were in favour of the fuckin' gas chambers?? you think they even KNEW about them??

>Before that, countless wars where people patted themselves on the back for killing entire towns and raping and torturing the women/children.
yeh, some people are dicks.
very small minority of people nowadays that would be willing to pull that shit now, even if they can get away with it.
morals are pretty deeply engrained.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948777]

>>4948773
christ, we'd all end up as empty husks of human beings. empty logical unemotional walking robots.
like spock, or vulcans or, whatever. you guys probably know.

people wouldnt want to lose their humanity, most people, certainly.

[Anonymous No.4948782]

>>4948775
>>4948777
>most people

I keep seeing you say this, but you keep using yourself as a model to represent the rest of the human race.

[Anonymous No.4948785]

>EK
>Quality poster thar contributes to the thread
>Pick one

[Anonymous No.4948786]

>>4948777
>people wouldnt want to lose their humanity, most people, certainly.
There is nothing to cry about, you won't live to see the changes. It will progress slowly as evolution. Humans won't even notice when they will turn into something else, this won't be a matter of decision and wanting or not.
If people can mutilate themselves now to become more attractive and follow trends and fashions, they will stand in lines for cyborgization too.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948787]

>>4948782
'most people' - EK
>I keep seeing you say this
never generalise! (lel, you see what i did there?)

nah, but honestly, you shouldnt. even saying all encompassing statements like: 'nobody wants to be tortured' aint completely true if theres even any chance at all of there being an exception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

>but you keep using yourself as a model to represent the rest of the human race.
hah, fuck no. im aware that im very very unusual,

[Anonymous No.4948792]

>Humanity will follow European morals
>China
I bet they are already experimenting on cloning people.
And remember, the strongest wins, so If we won't go for genetic manipulation too, we are going to get left behind with our "values".
Hard choice isn't it?

[Anonymous No.4948793]

>>4948792
>nationalism when it comes to science
Nah dawg

[Anonymous No.4948795]

>>4948648
A-sexuals don't real, unless you are referring to microbes.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948797]

>>4948792
'wins'?
the fuck is that
if they have clones and we dont, we still coexist
china wont be like 'fufufufu, nuke the none croners!'

[Anonymous No.4948800]

Why would we "evolve" if transhumanism and eugenism are common things?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948803]

>>4948795
you dont think asexual humans exist
oh wow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16552173

tim got friendzoned fuckin hard! i kinda feel bad for the guy....

[Anonymous No.4948804]

>>4948755
Morality is definitely subjective. A social experiment can test this: Put your family on an island with another family for a given amount of time and give them the bare minimum amount of sustenance for one family to survive. You're in a kill or be killed situation and all of the sudden killing is now justified.
In order for us to prove a "universal" morality, we need to prove a true "universal" form of altruism, which we haven't yet.
To answer OP doe: Transhumanism. Fuck evolution.

[Anonymous No.4948805]

>>4948797
Most importantly, what would china need clones for? They are already like 2 billion and don't know what to do with all those people.

[Anonymous No.4948809]

>>4948793
Somebody missed a whole century.
>>4948797
They will create superior sportsmen, superior businessmen, superior workers, overall more intelligent, cooperating and useful.
Rest will remain backed-up states in such case, consequences might be various.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948812]

>>4948804
> A social experiment can test this: Put your family on an island with another family for a given amount of time and give them the bare minimum amount of sustenance for one family to survive. You're in a kill or be killed situation and all of the sudden killing is now justified.
holy shit, did you watch the same youtube video as me?
i saw that shit like 2 days ago...

>>4948805
just coz they can.
>yay science!

[Anonymous No.4948813]

>>4948812
Inter arma enim silent leges

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948814]

>>4948809
>Rest will remain backed-up states in such case, consequences might be various.
wont be much different than the asymmetry between the wealthy western world and 3rd worlders living in mudhuts and drinking brownwater.

[Anonymous No.4948817]

http://www.london2012.com/medals/medal-count/
It's happening.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948818]

>>4948813
'in times of war, the law goes silent'
(or something like that)

and yeah!! fuck YEAHH!!

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948821]

>>4948817
uhuh, uhuh.
hey, i dont know if you've noticed, but, WEVE SENT A SUPER-HIGH-TECH ROVER TO FUCKING MARS!!

[Anonymous No.4948837]

>>4948673
Don't worry abou that. Flammenwerfers have been a reality for at least a century.

[Anonymous No.4948840]

>>4948817
The difference between the athletes is that Olympians from china are ripped from their families at a young age and trained JUST for the Olympics. U.S. Olympians volunteer for training.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948841]

>>4948837
heheh, and at least fucking furries will ignite pretty easily.

[Anonymous No.4948848]

>>4948841
>implying your great grandchild won't be a furry.

[Anonymous No.4948849]

It takes millions of years to do any of that shit that OP posted if it were to happen on it's own (well, except majority being not white as whiteys have the least kids when comparing entire races).

>Our immune systems will be weak with the advent of new medicines
I think it would be quite the opposite, as there are alot of ways to boost our system even now

[Anonymous No.4948854]

>>4948840
>ripped from families
>families
>not fluid tanks

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4948855]

>>4948848
then they'd be a dead furry. i dont tolerate that shit

[Anonymous No.4948860]

>>4948729
You don't know what you're talking about, son. 1960-1995 was peak moralfaggotry because of the soviet boogie-man vs the enlightened humanitarian west.

Humanity is back on it's social Darwinism path once again and thanks to the media we are overally way more cynical than back in the world wars era.

[Anonymous No.4948865]

>>4948855
Because other people clearly care about your opinions.

I mean, shit, even if you bought a dog it'll still ignore you, and you think that other PEOPLE give a shit?

[Anonymous No.4948869]

>>4948840
Yeah. Also Chinese official eat human fetus sandwiches in their lunch breaks and then mail the bill of the bread to the dead fetus' parents.

[Anonymous No.4948875]

People will have complete control over their bodies and the bodies of their children.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I know that I'm never going to give up the human form if I can help it. Even if I vastly improve it in terms of physical and mental capabilities and modify is aesthetically for super-normal stimulus, I'm going to want myself and my children to remain looking human.

My descendent's will probably think the same way. This will prevent much drift even into the far future, and probably even keep them from diverging far beyond the initial racial and ethnic boundaries I set.

[Anonymous No.4948876]

>>4948869
>Mail the bill
You mean, they pay the parents or just are so evil enough to show the bill for bought meal for it's parents?

[Anonymous No.4948880]

>>4948875
>My descendent's will probably think the same way
Even I can hear your decedents laughing at you.

[Anonymous No.4948885]

>>4948876
You naive and innocent westerner... They mail the bill so that the parents will pay for it (mailing expenses included).

[Anonymous No.4948891]

>>4948885
So evil... So they take fetus at force too? I thought parents sell those there.

[Anonymous No.4948904]

>>4948809
In the era of globalization nationalism only holds right-wing cannibals back. Greed and self-centered ambition are way more effective motives for economic growth than patriotism or ethnicity oriented altruism.

[Anonymous No.4948913]

>>4948891
>>4948891
>they take the fetus by force?
Never heard of one child policy?

[Anonymous No.4948915]

>>4948880

I'm a white person, born of white people. I want my children to be white. With genetic engineering, I can ensure that not only are my children white, but that they are precisely the kind of white person I want them to be.

Why will this trend change? Why will my desendent's suddenly decide, after thousands of years of my genetic line maintaining a certain phenotype, to change it?

[Anonymous No.4948920]

>>4948915
Don't know if you noticed but many white people are trying to get an artificial tan.

[Anonymous No.4948931]

>>4948920

I find tan skin particularly disgusting. While I can find dark skin attractive, I much prefer super pale skin.

In European society, light skin has been coveted for basically all of history. Lighter skinned people had more children due to being in higher demand, and so I have the pale skin I have now.

If I could choose, I would make my children have even paler skin then I do.

Why is it that my ancestors liked pale skin, I like pale skin, but somehow my descendent's won't? How is this chain going to be broken when it hasn't been for thousands of years?

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4948936]

>>4948931
I find white skin to be most attractive, simply because im attracted to intellect.

[Anonymous No.4948949]

>>4948946
inb4 pointing out typo

[Anonymous No.4948946]

>>4948936
>can't tell if joking or actully retarded

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4948957]

>>4948946

[Anonymous No.4948968]

>>4948931
Lemme guess. Tanning being considered sexy, tanning machines, and sunbathing are all due to Jewish media propaganda?

[Anonymous No.4948993]

>>4948968

Answer the question; why did my ancestors find light skin attractive, why do I find it attractive, but why will my children not find it attractive?

[Anonymous No.4949089]

>>4948931
Generally it's established that the reason is because of homogeneity. Afterall, your "white" ancestors weren't more attracted to the paler eastern europeans, nor did they worship albinos.

In many parts of the world people where people discriminate by skin color they don't generally do it by "whiteness" or "blackness" but rather "our skin tone" and "not our skin tone". This can be seen across the whole of the asian continent as well as the american continents, even in Africa this was and still is the case (which makes sense considering africa is bigger than a bunch of the other continents put together and it's full of tons of different tribes that all hate each other). You could take it further and point out that in megacities you're generally discriminated against based not on if you're from that "race", ethnicity, nationality, etc.. but based on if you're from the city or not (something that people can tell immediately based on how you talk and act).

[Anonymous No.4949092]

>>4948993
There is not only sexual selection. Many darker people in the sunand resources deprived northern Europe tundras would die by vitamin-d deficiency before they reached reproductive age. Medieval appeal to lighter skin was mostly due to social reasons (with tanned people considered either peasant class manual workers and darker people as non-Christian infidels).

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4949110]

>>4948993
>but why will my children not find it attractive?
maybe just for the 1st generation they will, but somewhere down the genetic line, eventually one of your decendants will end up breeding with a darky, its inevitable. and then you'll have lost the trait to find only pale skin attractive down your genetic line.

racial blending is inevitable, give it a few centuries, you'll see.

[Anonymous No.4949128]

>>4949110
Even that is not nessecary. Either for natural or social reasons in modern society pale-skin is not considered as attractive or healthy as a light tan.

Also Niggas gets all the white pussy.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.4949140]

>>4949128
meh, some people like it. im unusual pale, but i dont think it makes me unattractive.

>Also Niggas gets all the white pussy.
haha, no.

you'll find that quite a lot of girls are like me, in that they arnt outwardly racist, and would never say or do anything bad to a black person, but when it comes to sexual selection, they still prefer white guys

im not saying that no white girls fuck niggers, because obviously that aint true.
but it aint that common, trust me.

haz claims to be 'completely not racist at all' but i'd still bet a fuckin' fortune that she'd never fuck a nigger.

[Anonymous No.4949144]

>>4948548
Edgemost toe erased and I'm all set

[Anonymous No.4949151]

>>4949140
On the other hand I admit myself as racist but would never find a racist girl attractive, that includes you.

[Anonymous No.4949161]

>>4949089

Exactly. My pale children will want to breed with other pale people, and so my grandchildren will again be pale, and so on and so forth.

>>4949092

The preference for light skin goes back farther then my ancestors' existence in Europe. Light skin originated as a mutation in the near east, and was eugenically breed for. It has been continuously bred for in my gene line for the last five thousand to fourteen thousand years. I intend to continue breeding for light skin, and in fact to search for lighter skin just as my ancestors did.

The only source for novel skin color or any other novel traits is random mutation. This won't occur due to my ability to genetically engineer my children to only possess the traits I want them to have. They'll have the same ability, and my personal preferences will be passed on to them in the same way my ancestors' preferences were passed on to me.

>>4949110

>>eventually one of your decendants will end up breeding with a darky

My ancestors probably bred with a "darky" in the past, this hasn't changed the fact that my skin is light, and that the vast majority of my ancestors' skin was light. If my ancestors' chose to breed with lots of people with dark or tanned skin, I would have dark or tanned skin.

>>racial blending is inevitable, give it a few centuries, you'll see

The races have been blending since forever. There are still light skinned people because just like me, some number of them preferred light skin generation after generation.

[Anonymous No.4949187]

>>4949161
So you want to doom your offspring into being a socially retarded beta with visible blood vessels?

[Anonymous No.4949196]

none of those traits will appear, because even though they might make us "better", the person with those traits would still have to reproduce and people with the traits you just described arent considered normal and usually don't reproduce, whether they had better traits or not

[Anonymous No.4949209]

We're not going to experience much selection. Instead what we're experiencing is deselection. We're living when it doesn't otherwise make sense to, so our genome is widening.

It's possible, however, that the most intelligent and the least intelligent will grow further and further apart (although it's also possible that they won't, because if I impregnate a really hot dumb girl, she'll probably not get an abortion).

There's no way to speculate what we'll be. The best answer I can come up with is that we'll be less genetically adept, but, we'll probably start tampering with the genome sooner or later, offsetting this.

[Anonymous No.4949233]

>>4949187

No, I want my offspring to be defiant rebels who carve their own path, just like me and my father before me, who don't give one shit about social hierarchies, with glorious pale skin and dark hair and eyes.

Only betas care about that alpha-beta nonsense, and stereotype people into one of those roles based on their skin color.

[Anonymous No.4949243]

>>4948548
I think that we as humans have probably almost reached our peak, and will remain pretty much constant from here on.

[Anonymous No.4949269]

>>4949233
>defiant rebels
>white people
Sorry to break it to you but the last time this happenned was back in the expansion of the roman empire and only because the olive-skins preffered to exterminate than assimilate pale skinned subhumans with no cultural achievements. Even back then you probably sucked your tribal leaders' cock as submissively as you do with the man today. Being xenophobic towards outsiders and submissive to hierarchy and authority is what probably made the white man great.

[Anonymous No.4949290]

>>4949269

I hate to break it to you, but suggesting that all white people are the same is racist. There are cooperative whites, contrarian whites, violent whites, peaceful whites, smart whites, dumb whites, and yes, even defiant whites.

I happen to come from a line of white people, or at least a short branch of it, that chafe against authority.

[Anonymous No.4949540]

I don't think human body will ever change as long as civilization persists and the reason for that is simply that usually 'freaks don't get laid', and likelyhood of people of opposite sex with same ULTRA RARE mutations ending up together is highly unlikely.

Only possible way i see humanity to evolve new physical attributes is by going through a severe evolutionary bottleneck. For that to happen, something like a major extinction event is required, something during which anything worth calling a civilization would certainly not be able to sustain humanity being so stuck with technology that something like OP thinks would happen.

[Anonymous No.4949551]

>>4949290
I must admit that the southernmost of the u.s. have rather exotic breeds of whites.

[Anonymous No.4949642]

>>4949551
Yes, indeed.