What is the evolutionary advantage of smoking cigarettes? Why haven't people who are genetically predisposed to enjoying tobacco and addiction bred out of the genepool if it is so unhealthy, and unhealthiness = less fitness for mating?
>>8170406
Seems like there are considerably worse genetic traits that are being kept alive.
Maybe it just takes all kinds.
It doesn't have a big enough impact on health to make people croak before having sex.
>>8170406
>unhealthiness = less fitness for mating
Not on 2016. If anything the druggies will be the most irresponsible and the most likely to breed.
That said, addiction is not a genetic thing, we all feel pleasure and if we were to decide that pleasure is more important than everything else then you are literally addicted by choice.
What is the evolutionary advantage of being born stupid? Why haven't people who are genetically predisposed to shitposting and faggotry bred out of the genepool if it is makes no difference in the world, and autism= less fitness for mating?
Where can I buy Parliament menthols? I only ever see the Lights and regulars.
>>8170406
Clearly, people who enjoy tobacco are more likely to pass on their genes because it's cool. Losers who refuse to smoke are unattractive to the opposite sex and thus experience difficulty passing on their pathetic genes.
>>8170406
Smoking isn't unhealthy for the most part, so what you're asking isn't really sensible.
>>8170425
>Addiction is not a genetic thing
[citation needed]
It stimulates acetylcholine receptors?
>>8170961
Maybe you should demonstrate that it's a genetic thing instead of spamming correlation bullshit.
>>8170981
Burden of proof, you made a claim now back it up.
I'm not OP if that's what you think.
>>8170994
Ok. I recant that. I'm not him by the way.
>Addiction is a genetic thing
[citation needed]
![Smoke_and_Look_Old[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I2exrij.jpg "Smoke_and_Look_Old[1].jpg")
>>8170954
Here we go again with this faggot...
>>8170406
stimulant. makes you competitive in the short term, which is just fine for passing on genes. a long life has never been that important.
>>8171001
http://journals.lww.com/behaviouralpharm/Abstract/2009/02000/Genetics_of_dopamine_receptors_and_drug_addiction_.1.aspx
http://www.ashdin.com/journals/JDAR/235972.pdf
The second link is probably more relevant. My sister studies the neuroscience of addiction and my family has severe addictive personality disorders running through it. Luckily me and my sister were able to mostly avoid it through conscious behavioral modification. Still I get relapses and it's hard to keep myself from forming addictive habits to even stupid shit like video games.
1st
> linking genetic variants of these receptors to drug addiction phenotypes
Correlation
>http://www.ashdin.com/journals/JDAR/235972.pdf
This is more relevant. You are right. But it's still a polemic conclusion. Human experiments with individuals with the same experience and education would be ideal.
Thanks anyway for the info.
>>8171016
>sister studies addiction
>doesn't know the difference between substance addiction and behavioral addiction
>>8171034
99% of all genetic studies are correlation. It's pretty much impossible to build a full mechanism of action for a gene. It's hard to do it otherwise. There are studies involving large numbers of individuals that are selected and screened for specific genetic variances and scores on tests for addictive traits. It's a limitation of our technology at this point, if only we had the funding.
>>8171038
Did I attempt to make a distinction? Is it relevant for the topic at hand?
>>8171039
>99%
Yes. The correlation makes up a good statement. But it's not actually a direct link between cause-effect.
>if only we had the funding.
Yes. We need more funding for brain research and its genetic implication.
>>8170406
You don't typically develop cancer from smoking for many years down the line. Unless you're smoking like 10 packs a day you probably won't develop it until your late 60s or 70s, at which point you've already had kids and therefore passed on these "genes"
>>8171005
you're going to need a better argument than that if you want to prove smoking is bad for you.
It is a prosocial mating strategy
Asking for a light/smoke is a common practice in approaching women. This typically is followed with conversation and then results depending on seduct-ability.
>>8170406
It simply doesn't kill or harm us fast enough to cause any selection pressure.
smoking makes you cooler and thus more likely to pork chicks
cmon man use your brain
