Being over 5'11 tall is an evolutionary failure

ifyouwannabemylover

ifyouwannabemylover

Ascended
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Posts
17,302
Reputation
32,671
Being unnecessarily tall is an evolutionary disadvantage and only exists as a result of human females' failed mate selection. Let me explain...

Being tall is tied to the following health hazards:

  • irregular heartbeat
  • varicose veins
  • peripheral neuropathy
  • lower extremity ulcers
  • atrial fibrillation
  • higher cancer risk
  • etc.
Find out more here:


This tells us that female mate selection selects for traits that the female brain falsely perceives as dimorphic and, thus, actually ends up weakening the species.

You can observe this same phenonemon in other species such as deer:
glossary-m-whitetail.jpg



In deer, female mate selection prefers males with bigger antlers, causing the males of that species to develop bigger and bigger antlers with every generation:
1200px-Cervus_elaphus_Luc_Viatour_6.jpg



The issue here is that overly large antlers bear no evolutionary advantages. Actually, the opposite is the case. Male deer with oversized antlers are known to get stuck in trees and branches and literally die from starvation or fall prey to predators:


Years ago, Danny Abrams heard about a strange phenomenon: Deer skeletons were being found beside trees in the forests of the Midwest. These male deer had apparently gotten their massive, unwieldy antlers caught in the branches, where they’d found themselves trapped. Unable to find food or flee predators, they quickly met their demise.



So we can observe the same evolutionary phenomenon in deer that we also see in humans in regards to height. Female mate selection actually ends up corrupting the species and weakening it. In the case of humans and height, making us less agile and athletic with reduced stealth ability and more prone to various diseases and health issues. Bigger humans also naturally require more resources (food), which naturally is a huge disadvantage.


Conclusion:
We can conclude that the ideal human height for males is anywhere from 5'9 to 5'11. Females should be no taller than 5'8. This ensures ideal proportions and aesthetics, as well as optimal health and survivability outcomes.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: risque_dew, 5'7 zoomer, vaninskybird and 4 others
League Of Legends Loop GIF
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 9779, MaxillaMaxing, Deleted member 22190 and 6 others
How tall are you?
 
Yes I somewhat agree but it should be something like

ideal male = 6ft - 6ft 3
ideal female = 5ft7 - 5ft10
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: garoupilled_ and MaxillaMaxing
Being unnecessarily tall is an evolutionary disadvantage and only exists as a result of human females' failed mate selection. Let me explain...

Being tall is tied to the following health hazards:

  • irregular heartbeat
  • varicose veins
  • peripheral neuropathy
  • lower extremity ulcers
  • atrial fibrillation
  • higher cancer risk
  • etc.
Find out more here:


This tells us that female mate selection selects for traits that the female brain falsely perceives as dimorphic and, thus, actually ends up weakening the species.

You can observe this same phenonemon in other species such as deer:
glossary-m-whitetail.jpg



In deer, female mate selection prefers males with bigger antlers, causing the males of that species to develop bigger and bigger antlers with every generation:
1200px-Cervus_elaphus_Luc_Viatour_6.jpg



The issue here is that overly large antlers bear no evolutionary advantages. Actually, the opposite is the case. Male deer with oversized antlers are known to get stuck in trees and branches and literally die from starvation or fall prey to predators:






So we can observe the same evolutionary phenomenon in deer that we also see in humans in regards to height. Female mate selection actually ends up corrupting the species and weakening it. In the case of humans and height, making us less agile and athletic with reduced stealth ability and more prone to various diseases and health issues. Bigger humans also naturally require more resources (food), which naturally is a huge disadvantage.


Conclusion:
We can conclude that the ideal human height for males is anywhere from 5'9 to 5'11. Females should be no taller than 5'8. This ensures ideal proportions and aesthetics, as well as optimal health and survivability outcomes.
Super potent dravida manlet cope
 
It is a shame that women were given rights in this modern age, as they are creatures completely incapable of making rational decisions... :feelsbadman:
 
  • +1
Reactions: risque_dew, garoupilled_, vaninskybird and 1 other person
I wouldn’t deny that your Brit mutt ass is subtly copium overdosed with forming theories like these but at same time the point you delineated here from an evolutionary and biological point of view makes sense.

What’s desirable in the dating market isn’t necessarily supposed to be the most optimum or healthy. The human body isn’t supposed to be healthy while having an enhanced roided body like Cbum. Natty is healthier and yet women chose the roidcels proving your theory of female mate selection selects for traits that the female brain falsely perceives as dimorphic and, thus, actually ends up weakening the species.
 
Just be a 5'2 Indian janitor theory
 

Similar threads

n9wiff
Replies
8
Views
954
n9wiff
n9wiff
L
Replies
48
Views
3K
Patient A
Patient A
D
Replies
7
Views
755
janitormaxxing
J
chief detectiveman
Replies
8
Views
4K
bourgeoizyzz
bourgeoizyzz
mogstars
Replies
80
Views
5K
Maalik
Maalik

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top