Deleted member 15827
Will be back
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2021
- Posts
- 19,787
- Reputation
- 24,139
Have you ever noticed how manlets seem to have better facial structure and look better than tall men on average. If this is not selection bias( which I don't think it is) then there may be an evolutionary reason why the gene that codes for facial aesthetics is influenced by the gene that codes for height.
I know there are many genes responsible for facial aesthetics but for my argument I would like to consider a set of genes responsible for facial beauty A and a set of genes responsible for facial beauty B.
I would like to also use Nietzsche's notion of the Will to Power as a lens from which we can decode and re-encode such a mechanism.
What I want to prove is this:
Height> face and an organism strives to attain height and when height is not dimporphic enough, nutrients from the placenta are devoted to facial aesthetics instead as a compensation to help maximise passing on genes ( basically a cope).
First, for Nietzsche evolution is a mechanism which surpasses itself. Given enough time offshoots occur which is so far advanced from its genetic tree progenitors that its novelty cannot be reconciled with classical notions of natural selection ( today this is known as Darwin's black box).
However by splicing time into tinier bits we can delineate which traits are most important for a particular species' chances at mating. For almost all land mammals height is the best predictor of passing on one's genes. In fact, height so far trumps other features that the taller you are, the less time will you survive in this world ( a biological fact).
If such an handicap exists to such a trait why does the female of the species select over and over for it? Surely it must select for a short male who can live longer and provide resources for a longer time, but no! Evolution keeps selecting for height even with such a huge tradeoff.
This cannot be answered with a Darwinian paradigm where survival is the name of the game. No! The species must evolve, must surpass itself, the individual is dispensable. It is the species that is important.
With a Nietzschean paradigm however we can see how height is selected for because it affords the best chance of surpassing our all too human nature. Why are the Greek statues tall and proud? Why is Middle English literature replete with kings who are 6'4 and tanned? Because tallness secures alpha status in tribal times and the tall guy might even die sooner than the betas because he is reared to throw the first arrow at the mammoth, the first spear at an enemy tribe etc. Tallness was both a birth and a blessing because the species has to overcome itself.
Now however, our primal brains still function the same way. Being tall primes you to be alpha , and you live as long as manlets to an extent now. But female brains are still wired to select for height, they get giddy when a tall bearded men stands in front of her ( even when he looks like an ogre) . This is because subconsciously she wants a tall child , even when in primal times it may have meant higher chances of death and lesser lifespan for her child. Think about it, why do beautiful parents produce ugly children sometimes but two lanklets almost produce a tall child?
Once the genes for tallness has been inculcated into a generation. That generation is now primed to succeed in the evolutionary game. Their children will be tall and the children will marry a tall man ( if girl) and so on and so on. No such thing for face. So I conclude that even at the pre - embryonic level genes for height when restricted lead to an increased propensity for facial aesthetics since height is the main trait that is necessary for the promulgation of that particular generation.
I know there are many genes responsible for facial aesthetics but for my argument I would like to consider a set of genes responsible for facial beauty A and a set of genes responsible for facial beauty B.
I would like to also use Nietzsche's notion of the Will to Power as a lens from which we can decode and re-encode such a mechanism.
What I want to prove is this:
Height> face and an organism strives to attain height and when height is not dimporphic enough, nutrients from the placenta are devoted to facial aesthetics instead as a compensation to help maximise passing on genes ( basically a cope).
First, for Nietzsche evolution is a mechanism which surpasses itself. Given enough time offshoots occur which is so far advanced from its genetic tree progenitors that its novelty cannot be reconciled with classical notions of natural selection ( today this is known as Darwin's black box).
However by splicing time into tinier bits we can delineate which traits are most important for a particular species' chances at mating. For almost all land mammals height is the best predictor of passing on one's genes. In fact, height so far trumps other features that the taller you are, the less time will you survive in this world ( a biological fact).
If such an handicap exists to such a trait why does the female of the species select over and over for it? Surely it must select for a short male who can live longer and provide resources for a longer time, but no! Evolution keeps selecting for height even with such a huge tradeoff.
This cannot be answered with a Darwinian paradigm where survival is the name of the game. No! The species must evolve, must surpass itself, the individual is dispensable. It is the species that is important.
With a Nietzschean paradigm however we can see how height is selected for because it affords the best chance of surpassing our all too human nature. Why are the Greek statues tall and proud? Why is Middle English literature replete with kings who are 6'4 and tanned? Because tallness secures alpha status in tribal times and the tall guy might even die sooner than the betas because he is reared to throw the first arrow at the mammoth, the first spear at an enemy tribe etc. Tallness was both a birth and a blessing because the species has to overcome itself.
Now however, our primal brains still function the same way. Being tall primes you to be alpha , and you live as long as manlets to an extent now. But female brains are still wired to select for height, they get giddy when a tall bearded men stands in front of her ( even when he looks like an ogre) . This is because subconsciously she wants a tall child , even when in primal times it may have meant higher chances of death and lesser lifespan for her child. Think about it, why do beautiful parents produce ugly children sometimes but two lanklets almost produce a tall child?
Once the genes for tallness has been inculcated into a generation. That generation is now primed to succeed in the evolutionary game. Their children will be tall and the children will marry a tall man ( if girl) and so on and so on. No such thing for face. So I conclude that even at the pre - embryonic level genes for height when restricted lead to an increased propensity for facial aesthetics since height is the main trait that is necessary for the promulgation of that particular generation.
