>only 40% of men throughout history have managed to reproduce
that means most men who lived didn't have access to a woman
What women are doing now is just naturally transitioning back to this
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success
my rebuttal
>>26611971
>>26611697
So basically you're saying that instead of letting people evolve based on the best genetics, you want to make genetic progress stagnant and force people to be born and with things like mental illnesses and suffer because of it?
>>26612729
if you want to live in a stable society, yes, that is what is required.
you do realize that for a hundred thousand years the whole natural selection best genes shit is how we survived right? that entire time we were uncivilized tribal animals. once agriculture came around we started creating actual civilizations and needed to change our breeding habits to accommodate.
>>26612729
It won't matter in ~50 years
We'll be able to modify ourselves tremendously
>>26611697
>falling for the reproduction meme
>>26612729
People have gotten dumber and uglier in the last 100 years though. Also if all girls are producing that means ugly ones are too which defeats the purpose.
>>26612835
You do realize genetics have continued to change even after we discovered farming, right?
>>26612846
Then why would we want to be making broken people intentionally before then?
>>26612878
[citation needed]
>>26612729
Best genetics for a decent society =/= best genetics for getting laid
>>26613006
Thank you anon
Now I remember why they said not all genes were obsolete.
>>26613006
>those who succeed best in society aren't going to have the greatest ability to reproduce
Theres a biological reason for women to be attracted to powerful men, you know
why does it seem like everyone has kids these days?
>>26613079
They're also attracted to serial killers and sociopaths. Good for humanity?
>>26611697
>that means most men who lived didn't have access to a woman
It means that most men didn't have offspring. I'm pretty sure many more than 40% managed to have sex, even if it didn't result on a child.
I know what's your point but I thought I needed to clarify that.
>>26613108
Oh you mean powerful and dominant people?
Yes it is, because those people are kept from reproducing by the other powerful people who are taking care of society
>>26612878
Also the ugly dumb girls reproduce even more than the hot smarter ones because they go to college and have "careers" with 1-2 kids while the dumb ugly ones start having kids at 18.
Also even if you were improving humans, which you arent, it would still collapse civilization because the majority of males have no incentive to participate. Which is growing with things like le red pill, mgtow, r9k, neets, etc.
>>26613118
Good point. Child mortality has always been fairly high.
>>26613118
it could also mean a whole bunch of men died before being able to have kids
kind of makes sense considering men are ones who fight wars and shit like that
>>26613118
it means even though there were times when all guys had access to girls they still got cucked by their wives and didnt actually have any kids.
>>26613134
>Also even if you were improving humans, which you arent, it would still collapse civilization because the majority of males have no incentive to participate.
Oh look another part of genetic evolution
The self-selecting part
>>26611697
Are you retarded or just living under a rock?
Just get a surrogate if you feel the need to have your seed passed.
>>26611697
This statistic seems weird....
In olden times women married earlier and stuff
I feel like there would be more men getting laid
Nowadays people wait and reproduce less
>>26613164
Fair point, but there's also the fact that in old-timey wars many women would also end up slaughtered because barbarians and whatnot. And I can imagine many soldiers getting their fun with the "spoils of war" if you catch my drift.
There's also the many plagues from old times, and diseases don't really discriminate which sex they kill.
>>26613197
That's assuming every single person who had sex had it with their spouses or partners. There's still rape, casual sex or prostitution. Not every person who has had sex in the world had it with the express purpose of procreation, y'know. Not even in the Middle Ages, where people feared God and the Church had lots of power.
>>26613216
>it'll be ok if society collapses and everyone dies, because that's nature and we can't do anything about it
God you're dumb, women choosing their own sex partners is a bad meme
>>26613294
8000 years ago everyone was pretty much a barbarian, agriculture was just really starting around that time.
it had to be wars, disease, or something like that. the article tries to brush this off by saying "the men were there" but that doesn't seem to make sense, how do they know they were "there" if they never had kids to show they were there I the first place? or maybe I'm just not understanding something..
>>26613307
Nope, the men who are competent are the same ones who are taking care of society and have women
The ones who refuse to take part are almost always not at all socially adjusted (and also have never had a girl into them tbhfam)
>>26613271
>In olden times
The vast majority of human history has been pre-civilization. We're talking something like 190,000 out of the last 10,000 years humans have been walking the earth without agriculture and civilization. Get some perspective.
>>26613364
I think the "they were there" statement isn't ignoring the people dying on wars or disease, but saying that, going by the math, there shouldn't be so many dead men to justify these numbers that way.
I agree with the article, by the way. I do think very few men from the past managed to pass their genes through their off-spring. I'ts completely plausible, given how much more common polygamy was, the top dogs (like the Kahns of the mongols) having a wife and many concubines, etc.
I'm more trying to make a rebuttal on OP's statement (most men who lived didn't have access to a whoman), which would also be untrue, because it follows the logic that 8000 years ago to the present every woman only married one man and/or every ocassion sex was had produced a child.
Given what my few arguments and what I think about the issue, I do think many more men actually had sex. I'd agree though that this number (40%) wouldn't bump that much higher. I'd guesstimate to a 60% of men that managed to have sex in their lives.
>>26613367
Women are attracted to bad boy dipshits, weather or not they have power, help protect everyone, and keep society running.
>>26611697
You know people can get married and not have kids right?
Not reproducing doesn't mean ''being a virgin''
>>26613241
/thread
hasn't anyone here heard of technology?
>>26611697
Women don't want that shit, they want financial security and ice-cream while they watch Dancing with the Stars.
>>26613107
Because the media has brainwashed you into thinking you're special.
>>26613532
that is incorrect. Women are afraid of anyone who is different, because of the bad wrap "dark" personalities get from tv.
We'll take their rights away....I'LL TAKE EVERY AWAY EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM
>>26613995
What makes you believe that?
Original comment desu
