Are the limits to natural selection?

[MoriBountarou2]

Is there a specific standard you have to reach to be lovable or does it not matter because there will always be genetically superior people? What i mean is, lets take height for example, if somehow the average height became 195cm, to be considered attractive would you then need to be 220cm?

 

[DoesItGetBetter?]

personally i think you need to have atleast 1-2 traits(face,frame,height or nt) that are atleast top 10%, everything else atleast average. but for height past 195cm will still have diminishing returns instead youd have to make up for it in other areas to truly stand out

 

[MoggedSubhuman]

Foids only see the top 10% as real people. The rest are subhuman, so yes, you have to be the best or be left behind. Only 40% of men got to reproduce while 80% of foids did. Subhuman males are weeded out each generation.

 

[MoriBountarou2]

Foids only see the top 10% as real people. The rest are subhuman, so yes, you have to be the best or be left behind. Only 40% of men got to reproduce while 80% of foids did. Subhuman males are weeded out each generation.

Yeah i was just wondering its not like im making it to that top 10% anyways. So is the features/development itself attractive or is it the being better than others part what do you think?

 

[o_Owtf]

Typically how it works in evolution is that the environment creates selective pressure for some kind of trait, maybe height. This means that taller specimens will have more access to food and probably reproduce more, this is called natural selection. Then, subsequently, it becomes advantageous for you to have kids with members of the species that are tall, because then your kids will be tall.

The trait of being tall itself becomes salient and becomes reinforced by selective pressure not from the environment, but from the species itself, often even beyond what is naturally advantageous. This is called sexual selection. @hypernormie has a nice picture illustrating this in his signature. The limit of this effect is when the sexual advantage can no longer compensate the natural disadvantage.

 

[o_Owtf]

...

Humans probably reached this limit long ago, but now in modern society where everybody is fed and healthy, and vanity can be afforded there is a sudden massive sexual selection for very tall men. (bitches on tiktok talm bout their man needs to be 6'3 at least etc) so I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple centuries the average height is 190cm as you said if we keep it up at this rate

 

[The Fool]

Is there a specific standard you have to reach to be lovable or does it not matter because there will always be genetically superior people? What i mean is, lets take height for example, if somehow the average height became 195cm, to be considered attractive would you then need to be 220cm?

This would be a madaptive adaptation

 

[stonecold trucel]

fuck the world is so cruel........

 

[eyenerf]

fuck the world is so cruel........

yupp at least you can improve

 

[MoriBountarou2]

yupp at least you can improve

 

[MoriBountarou2]

Humans probably reached this limit long ago, but now in modern society where everybody is fed and healthy, and vanity can be afforded there is a sudden massive sexual selection for very tall men. (bitches on tiktok talm bout their man needs to be 6'3 at least etc) so I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple centuries the average height is 190cm as you said if we keep it up at this rate

Do you think its the height that is attractive or the fact that at that height you are genetically superior? Is the superiority or the feature itself attractive? Sorry for my enlgish and if im not making myself clear

 

[o_Owtf]

Do you think its the height that is attractive or the fact that at that height you are genetically superior? Is the superiority or the feature itself attractive? Sorry for my enlgish and if im not making myself clear

I'm not a biologist but I think it's a bit of both honestly.
1. Your environment selects for height, so it's good if you're tall
2. But being tall doesn't help if your children are short, because then you're cucked. If your kids can't get laid then that's the end of your bloodline even if you're a 7'0 mogger.

So (1) probably selects for specimens to be attracted to just the trait itself, women like tall men who can protect them. But (2) selects for attraction simply for the genetic code that makes you tall. The DNA itself becomes attractive because you will give it to your kids and make them tall as well.

 

[MoriBountarou2]

I'm not a biologist but I think it's a bit of both honestly.
1. Your environment selects for height, so it's good if you're tall
2. But being tall doesn't help if your children are short, because then you're cucked. If your kids can't get laid then that's the end of your bloodline even if you're a 7'0 mogger.

So (1) probably selects for specimens to be attracted to just the trait itself, women like tall men who can protect them. But (2) selects for attraction simply for the genetic code that makes you tall. The DNA itself becomes attractive because you will give it to your kids and make them tall as well.

Im asking because i was thinking what is it that makes someone lovable? Because if it is the traits themselves then isnt the bar lower? For genuine desire? Because an MTN sure theres other genetically superior men but he would still have some desirable features (im not talking about myself im LTN at best ) thus making him lovable. The chemicals or whatever the fuck that happens in a womans brain which we call love would happen and he would be lovable. But if its the superiority that is attractive then it doesnt matter if he has one or two really good features because he isnt better then others overall. Again sorry if i didnt explain it well

 

[o_Owtf]

Im asking because i was thinking what is it that makes someone lovable? Because if it is the traits themselves then isnt the bar lower? For genuine desire? Because an MTN sure theres other genetically superior men but he would still have some desirable features (im not talking about myself im LTN at best ) thus making him lovable. The chemicals or whatever the fuck that happens in a womans brain which we call love would happen and he would be lovable. But if its the superiority that is attractive then it doesnt matter if he has one or two really good features because he isnt better then others overall. Again sorry if i didnt explain it well

There is apparently archeological findings that suggests humans have been hypergamous even tens of thousands of years back before any supposed modern decadence. However humans are also an artricial species with offspring that are helpless for a very long time, meaning that it's not a very good strategy for the man to just fuck a bunch of girls and have children with 10 baby mommas. Likewise it's not good for a woman to have kids with an unavailable father that is spread thin between 9 other women. So women are probably somewhere in between, because the gain of mating with chad is offset by the competition with a bunch of other women.

 

[htbslayeer]

Y’all often mistake natural selection for sexual selection: they can be interposed but are fundamentally different. Natural selection doesn’t exist in humans, we have built a very non natural society.

 

[MoriBountarou2]

There is apparently archeological findings that suggests humans have been hypergamous even tens of thousands of years back before any supposed modern decadence. However humans are also an artricial species with offspring that are helpless for a very long time, meaning that it's not a very good strategy for the man to just fuck a bunch of girls and have children with 10 baby mommas. Likewise it's not good for a woman to have kids with an unavailable father that is spread thin between 9 other women. So women are probably somewhere in between, because the gain of mating with chad is offset by the competition with a bunch of other women.

Yeah but is that genuine desire or out of necessity. Those chemicals that i mentioned or mechanism whatever that we call love, does that happen when she goes for the MTN (out of necessity) or does that happen only when she goes for the genetically superior? Does it only happen with the best OR does it work more like a meter where that happens more with the genetically superior and less with the inferior? What do you think?

 

[MoriBountarou2]

Y’all often mistake natural selection for sexual selection: they can be interposed but are fundamentally different. Natural selection doesn’t exist in humans, we have built a very non natural society.

Why do you think it doesnt exist in humans? I agree tho that we live in a very unnatural society but we still have the same biology

 

[htbslayeer]

Why do you think it doesnt exist in humans? I agree tho that we live in a very unnatural society but we still have the same biology

We have been living in a society for a much shorter time than we had been living “wildish”, and evolution takes place in millions of years. And take into account that we are humans, not animals, as long as we want to believe it’s the same thing it’s really not even tho we share traits.

 

[MoriBountarou2]

We have been living in a society for a much shorter time than we had been living “wildish”, and evolution takes place in millions of years. And take into account that we are humans, not animals, as long as we want to believe it’s the same thing it’s really not even tho we share traits.

Yeah sure we arent but still i think the basis of our life is our biology. A girl can absolutely be interested in you because of other reasons not related to the biological stuff we were talking about but that is interest, not attraction. One is conscious the other happens unconsciously. And it isnt the same thing. If the processes in her brain that makes her consider "loving" you, which are based on biology, dont happen when she sees you, then isnt she in "love" with the money, security, attention etc you provide her with and not really you? What do you think?