I kinda cringe when people talk about “superior and inferior genetics”

[Shrek2OnDvD]

I know everyone here is gonna call me an idiot, but please hear me out

The physical characteristics we have are determined by the environment we grow up in. The notion that one specific gene is “superior” doesn’t make sense from a biological standpoint

For example, skin colour is considered a marker of superiority/inferiority, however if you look at it closely, you will realise that skin pigmentation is simply an adaptation to a more sunny environment

The amount of melanin you have is determined by how close your ancestors lived to the equator. Thats it…

A person with light skin would survive easily in the north with less sunlight, but would probably develop skin cancer if they lived in the south

A person with dark skin would survive easily in the south, but would become vitamin D deficient in the north

One could say light skin is ‘superior’ in the sunless north, but by that logic dark skin would be ‘superior’ in the sunny south

The same thing applies to things like body type, nose types, lip sizes, hair types, skeletal structure etc

A 6’8 muscular 350 pound guy sounds like the perfect male specimen, but put him in wild with no access to civilisation, and he would probably lose all his muscle and end up starving trying to keep up his huge mass

Our features exist FOR A REASON. We look the way we do because of where we are from. One trait that may be superior in one place, may be inferior in another place & vice versa

This is why I find it strange how some people judge a person for having ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ genes on such baseless standards

 

[Seba]

So someone born blind,deaf, having down syndrome and no arms or legs doesnt have inferior genes?

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

So someone born blind,deaf, having down syndrome and no arms or legs doesnt have inferior genes?

You missed the point the so hard…

I’m talking about physical traits such as complexion, body composition, height, nose types, general facial features etc

Nobody is talking about disabilities here. Such people would have died off long ago, regardless of where they’re from

 

[Seba]

View attachment 3432991
You missed the point the so hard…

I’m talking about physical traits such as complexion, body composition, height, nose types, general facial features etc

Nobody is talking about disabilities here. Such people would have died off long ago, regardless of where they’re from

there is superior and inferior physical traits though, if there wasnt everyone would have the same chance to get a woman, the reason they go for chads is because they have superior genes and ugly short dumb people have inferior

 

[Primalsplit]

It's okay.

Spoiler

just admit it.

Spoiler

your genes are inferior aren't they?

 

[fuxkdakikez]

just be born healthy with no deformities

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

I know everyone here is gonna call me an idiot, but please hear me out

The physical characteristics we have are determined by the environment we grow up in. The notion that one specific gene is “superior” doesn’t make sense from a biological standpoint

For example, skin colour is considered a marker of superiority/inferiority, however if you look at it closely, you will realise that skin pigmentation is simply an adaptation to a more sunny environment

The amount of melanin you have is determined by how close your ancestors lived to the equator. Thats it…

A person with light skin would survive easily in the north with less sunlight, but would probably develop skin cancer if they lived in the south

A person with dark skin would survive easily in the south, but would become vitamin D deficient in the north

One could say light skin is ‘superior’ in the sunless north, but by that logic dark skin would be ‘superior’ in the sunny south

The same thing applies to things like body type, nose types, lip sizes, hair types, skeletal structure etc

A 6’8 muscular 350 pound guy sounds like the perfect male specimen, but put him in wild with no access to civilisation, and he would probably lose all his muscle and end up starving trying to keep up his huge mass

Our features exist FOR A REASON. We look the way we do because of where we are from. One trait that may be superior in one place, may be inferior in another place & vice versa

This is why I find it strange how some people judge a person for having ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ genes on such baseless standards

Your Reddit gold, sir

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

there is superior and inferior physical traits though, if there wasnt everyone would have the same chance to get a woman, the reason they go for chads is because they have superior genes and ugly short dumb people have inferior

Again you’re missing the point

People look the way they do because of sexual selection over thousands of years, im not denying that

In nature a person who is superior is one who survives long enough to have children and spread their genes

You don’t have to be particular intelligent or even attractive enough to do that

As long as your genes survive enough to pass them on, they will continue to exist and express themselves

Also many Ugly short people exist due to malnutrition, disease etc

 

[Iooksmax]

Such people would have died off long ago

No, actually. Since agriculture, negative mutations have been culled less and less due to a decrease in natural selection with the ease of survival and advancement of medicine.

 

[gaymidget]

I know everyone here is gonna call me an idiot, but please hear me out

The physical characteristics we have are determined by the environment we grow up in. The notion that one specific gene is “superior” doesn’t make sense from a biological standpoint

For example, skin colour is considered a marker of superiority/inferiority, however if you look at it closely, you will realise that skin pigmentation is simply an adaptation to a more sunny environment

The amount of melanin you have is determined by how close your ancestors lived to the equator. Thats it…

A person with light skin would survive easily in the north with less sunlight, but would probably develop skin cancer if they lived in the south

A person with dark skin would survive easily in the south, but would become vitamin D deficient in the north

One could say light skin is ‘superior’ in the sunless north, but by that logic dark skin would be ‘superior’ in the sunny south

The same thing applies to things like body type, nose types, lip sizes, hair types, skeletal structure etc

A 6’8 muscular 350 pound guy sounds like the perfect male specimen, but put him in wild with no access to civilisation, and he would probably lose all his muscle and end up starving trying to keep up his huge mass

Our features exist FOR A REASON. We look the way we do because of where we are from. One trait that may be superior in one place, may be inferior in another place & vice versa

This is why I find it strange how some people judge a person for having ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ genes on such baseless standards

Beauty is precisely so attractive because it needs certain cirucmstances that are the opposite of mere survival. The people in india can seemingly easy survive, have millions of births every year but they produce inferior people compared to for example northern europe. We humans instinctively see what is superior. Being tall and muscular is superior to being small and skinny but its also more costly. Thats why survival of the fittest wont produce the best outcome but just the easiest. Special circumstances and factors are needed to produce superior states like ancient athenes. Read Nietzsche.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Caucasoid features are according to an ww2 era german anthropologist "progressive" in the physical anthropology sense.

Progressive features include things like tall nasal bridges, strong chins, narrow skull,upright rather than sloping foreheads, etc. The features that are considered to be high class. Whites, especially Northern Europeans, tend to have the most progressive features, obviously not all northern euros have progressive features and not all progressive features are necessarily good. A long midface and high hairline are progressive features but can be death sentences.

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

No, actually. Since agriculture, negative mutations have been culled less and less due to a decrease in natural selection with the ease of survival and advancement of medicine.

I agree that modern medicine has decreased the risk of mortality in disabled people, however this applies very recently

Even 200 years ago, being sick or disabled could have been a death sentence. There were no support systems for such people and they were guaranteed to die without any children

I doubt that we would see such drastic changes anytime soon, simply because of how recent a lot of scientific and technological progress is

 

[love_enforcer]

I kinda smell an inferior shitskin itt

 

[Iooksmax]

I agree that modern medicine has decreased the risk of mortality in disabled people, however this applies very recently

Even 200 years ago, being sick or disabled could have been a death sentence. There were no support systems for such people and they were guaranteed to die without any children

I doubt that we would see such drastic changes anytime soon, simply because of how recent a lot of scientific and technological progress is

Still, there are milder afflictions. Over time this leads to people who are less genetically fit. Think mutations that cause things like asthma, random skin conditions, digestive issues, etc. I think environment is overstated, most people have a similarly bad, modern environment, yet some turn out much better athletically and aesthetically than others from similar conditions. I do agree people are heavy handed with the term "genetically superior" though, but that's mostly just racists.

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

Beauty is precisely so attractive because it needs certain cirucmstances that are the opposite of mere survival. The people in india can seemingly easy survive, have millions of births every year but they produce inferior people compared to for example northern europe. We humans instinctively see what is superior. Being tall and muscular is superior to being small and skinny but its also more costly. Thats why survival of the fittest wont produce the best outcome but just the easiest. Special circumstances and factors are needed to produce superior states like ancient athenes. Read Nietzsche.

Yes in terms of beauty that is different. Like you said, survival of the fittest is determined by where you live

Traits are selected according to what genes survives long enough to be passed on

However that opens up a whole different question about beauty and what we define it as. Do we find certain traits desirable? Of course. But are these traits more suited and adapt to their environment?

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

I kinda smell an inferior shitskin itt

Ok Cody, back to the trailer park with you

 

[NoHoesinOhio]

I don't agree with Rushton entirely but it makes sense how tougher circumstances could lead to mutations that are wholly advantageous due to pleiotropy. Obviously the stressors cannot be too high but since we are in a snapshot of history it is easy to tell apart superior organisms atleast generally

 

[NORDEN SLAVORUM]

 

[jrobts.]

When would recessed jaw ever be a plus?

 

[NoHoesinOhio]

 

[alriodai]

OP you're too smart to even justify common sense and critical thinking to a bunch of edgy autists who attached themselves to racial identity and race supremacy just to feel belonging or feel like they're apart of something superior (since they're inferior themselves)

Like literally don't trip about it lol

 

[averagenormie]

there is superior and inferior physical traits though, if there wasnt everyone would have the same chance to get a woman, the reason they go for chads is because they have superior genes and ugly short dumb people have inferior

No the reason is chad face is developed and have no disability