Utopia Talk / Politics / The Holocene Extinction event rolls on

Hrothgar Member	Thu Feb 15 23:37:04 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42994630 Most large vertebrate species except for human are seriously fucked in the next 100 years.
zombie jesus Member	Fri Feb 16 00:27:31 "It's shocking and it's unnecessary. Orangutans might eat farmers' fruit, but they are not dangerous." It is only neccessary because they eat the fruit.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 16 07:12:06 Maybe it is because man hunts them to extinction.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 16 09:39:16 A mass culling of humans seems to be in order... especially in shitholes.
jergul large member	Fri Feb 16 09:39:45 Like Florida? Too soon?
Rugian Member	Fri Feb 16 09:40:51 Or Utoya.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 16 09:41:32 The funny thing is right wingers are by far the best conservationists for large herbivores. The more there are, the better the hunting season :)
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 16 09:42:50 Only the stupid should be culled jergul. Like brainwashed invertebrates at political brainwashing island.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Feb 16 17:18:23 Adapt or die is the rule of nature. These species deserve extinction
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Feb 16 17:19:11 Only the stupid should be culled jergul. Like brainwashed invertebrates at political brainwashing island. ' You need automation first though. I mean, full androids and everything. Or do you expect genius to work in kitchens, serve food, stock the shelves at the grocery store, ect?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 16 19:21:59 Dont worry cthulu. Soon.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 17 02:40:34 Sammy You need go no further than review fertility statistics by economic group to decide who is fittest. From an evolutionary perspective, rock climbing and other forms of personal self-realization is inherently no different than sitting in a den smoking opium.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Feb 17 09:58:01 That was true before the industrial age jergul fail.
hood Member	Sat Feb 17 10:37:16 "You need go no further than review fertility statistics by economic group to decide who is fittest." Not really. At this point in history, humanity has ascended beyond the basic concepts of evolution and survival of the fittest. Fittest now refers to power (be it influence or money), not passing along DNA. Sure, even just a few hundred years ago, those who had an extremely high fertility could out produce warriors and overcome power, but in the post space age, violent uprisings are easy to defeat if you're willing to go that far.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 17 16:31:54 Hood and Adams Ok, so evolutionary theory is no longer relevant to you. Fair enough. Let me guess how many off-spring you two have combined :-). But what I said still holds: "You need go no further than review fertility statistics by economic group to decide who is fittest. From an evolutionary perspective, rock climbing and other forms of personal self-realization is inherently no different than sitting in a den smoking opium." But passing on genes through the generations is perhaps highly overrated. Just ask any non-flying dinosaur.
obaminated Member	Sat Feb 17 16:45:05 Damn dirty apes.
patom Member	Sun Feb 18 07:13:36 I read a few years back about the change in breeding habits in Africa. Don't know if it's true or not. Anyhow the article stated that prior to the missionaries coming to Africa. Women who were breast feeding were taboo for sex which kept the number of children that they had down to a manageable level. When modern missionaries arrived they introduced bottle feeding of infants which too the babies off the breast and put the mothers back in breeding mode. There fore the population explosion in Africa.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 18 14:47:20 Patom: No. Every country goes though a period of population boom during development. Infant mortality is alarmingly high, so people have lots of kids. Once you reduce famine and disease, you then get a boom before people realise they can't afford five dependants simultaneously. Happened in Europe, Asia, everywhere.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 15:29:08 >>humanity has ascended beyond the basic concepts of evolution and survival of the fittest. Fittest now refers to power (be it influence or money), not passing along DNA.<< lol. No. Sexual selection is The selection pressure for humans (and many of our mammalian cousins). 60% of males that have ever lived did not produce offspring. Still true, more men go childless. ”Power” or status has been an important factor in all of this for a long time. In fact much more historically than after the industrial revolution. It is still true that higher status in males means more offspring. Reverse for women. We have not been subject to the ”savanna” survival of the fittest game in such simple terms, ever. It is true that some portion of those 60% of men didn’t reproduce because they had through violence won darwin awards. But greater male variance tells us that a good number of men are simply unfuckable. Sexual selection matters a great deal. It is a simple fact of life that the physical investment for a woman is very high in producing offspring, so she should be picky. Without a doubt certain systems also provide obstacles for finding mates, say those that allow rich and powerful men to take several wives. To think that the advent of civilization and it’s own set of novel selection pressures, has put us above evolutionary process, is a fine example of someone not understanding what the ”basic concept” of evolutionary theory even is. i.e _any_ change in the relative frequency of genes from one generation to another in a population (biology 101). There is _no_ doubt that sedentary society rewards different traits than hunter gatherer society, none. Humans have _never_ breed like rats. (As a comparison female chimps produce 4-5 offspring in a lifetime, 3 for Orangs) so fertility is not a great factor in the evolutionary game of primates. This is true for most of the ”higher” mammals like elephant, whales etc. Relative low fertility compared to rats, rabbits (300+), fish, lizards and insects(1000s). Incidentally and on topic a great obstacle in saving these species from extinction. There are of course exceptions, some of the lowest fecundity is found in certain species of insects. Offspring investment however is a huge factor for species that take a long time to mature, rarely have more than 1 offspring at a time and have long gestation periods. Simply because it is riskier, more costly and most importantly it increases the likelihood of them growing up and having their own offspring <- this is when you are no longer a candidate for a darwin award btw, grandchildren are the receipt for being evolutionarily ”fit”. Raising the offspring to have offspring of its’ own... shall we say, requires a lot more than ”fertility”. This is not all that surprising for someone who does not even understand the difference between ”innate” and ”immutable” when it comes to biological traits. E.g lower testosterone production in women being innate, not immutable. ^This, not even laymen level grade, trash takes quite a lot of effort to clean up (several paragraphs to explain why 2 sentences are wrong), often to no avail, because people like you are so ”smert”. Just an FIY so you don’t wonder why I don’t respond, know that I always read. I have offspring to invest in! ;-) I will put jerguls inability to differentiate (false equivalency is his thing) the ”evolutionary perspective” of rock climbing and smoking opium, a couple of shades above not understanding evolution at all. Showing physical fitness and the disposable income and time to travel and rock climb... Not complicated brö. Such behavior may of course be hijacked in modern culture. Men may attain status and never get children, women may invest their time in a Chihuahua they call their baby. Another recent addition are the hook up apps that plays the fiddle of male promiscuity. But nothing indicates an ever increasing trend in childlessness, it has gone up and down since reliable data from the 70’s 10%>20%>15%@2014 (for women @ menopaus in the US). One would expect a permanent increase in the wake of female liberation, for sure some relatively small % of women were compelled to have children. The reverse may be true today. Neither is a good thing. Ultimately Jergul has a point, perhaps more than he is able/willing to see. People who go childless, are generally not a great source for insightful life advice. They lack skin in the long term game. Macron, May, Merkel and Löfven (Swedish PM). All childless. WTB, Hood, Dukhat, TC. ^Likewise feminists with only daughters can generally not be counted on to understand the trials and tribulation of contemporary boys. Seb and jergul, both qualify here. To paraphrase Jordan Peterson in a recent interview, ”Do not propose ”solutions” you will not suffer from if they fail.” Skin in the game, is the primary bullshit filter of evolution. What are you risking if this goes to shit? Nothing? Bwahahaha gtfo.
hood Member	Sun Feb 18 15:53:37 All it takes to invalidate literally everything you've said is a few thousand pounds of explosive material. Quite simply, the extremely poor people with high birth rates do not pose a threat to invalidate those who have power and fewer children. You lack the context of my response being uniquely crafted to respond to jergul's comment. That is, his constant implications that everything categorized as positive by people in power is entirely useless and invalidated for mundane things like the fact that poor people produce more offspring. In his view, this offspring advantage somehow makes poor people better, more evolutionary fit. While that is true at the most basic level, more offspring = greater chance of genes surviving to future generations, we as humans aren't that simple anymore. As I referenced above, it is a good deal less difficult to eradicate DNA lines when you have guns, bombs, nukes, chemical warfare. Poor people could make as many babies as they want. If the right people with the right influence wanted to, it could all be eradicated without ever invoking any darwin theory. Humanity could effectively glass Africa to the point that its human population is entirely negligible. All those babies, all those men having sex, would count for nothing. And jergul's retarded ideals would be equally useless, as hollow as the craters sitting beneath the glow. This isn't to say that poor people are indeed useless, or that rich people are better. It just isn't that simple; you cannot just look at passing along DNA as the end all be all of evolutionary fitness for humans.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 16:23:28 "we as humans aren't that simple anymore." You say I lack the context and yet you repeat the same erroneous point that I just spent a wall of text explaining is wrong. lol :) Try never, we never were this simple, nor are apes or the larger mammals. Tigers produce 15-20 offspring in a lifetime. Different species have different reproductive strategies. "It just isn't that simple; you cannot just look at passing along DNA as the end all be all of evolutionary fitness for humans." Another piece is simplified trash that would take an afternoon to debunk. TL:DR on the most basic level, yes that is what is going on. Phenotypes are to varying degrees an expression of genes, but surely that is not the entire story. Then we have the extended phenotypes, like civilization or nukes and the ability to glass another nation, those are also to varying degrees the products of genes. They give "fitness" over others who can field legions of cannon fodder via their higher fecundity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 16:45:28 And are you saying "At this point in history, humanity has ascended beyond the basic concepts of evolution and survival of the fittest." is "uniquely" tailored for Jergul? What does that even mean? Me calling him "lulzgul" is uniquely tailored for him. Saying humanity has ascended beyond the _basic_ concept of evolution is not. That is something left leaning people actually believe. You are not the first, so not unique ;-). I know you hate anecdotes, but I had this exact discussion at work. Hence why it was all fresh in memory. When I explained why he was wrong, he was telling me what you are "it isn't that simple". Well yes mother fucker that is why I have been saying for the past 30 minutes!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 17:12:32 Trust me, I understand Jergul, better than anyone here. He certainly is not arguing that we should breed like mice. He will make the exact same argument (in fact he has in the past) that I made about people who have no children. They lack skin in the long term game and will have a tendency to be self-serving with a limited horizon. MY life, my life time, mine. Once you have children or if you have like me always planned to have children, that horizon extends. In my sons lifetime, his life, his future. And in extension Jerguls kids and sebs kids and all kids. Jergul is s retard because he believes women are not having enough children in Norway because men don't share the responsibility. Not that him and dupes like him voted into office idiots who slowly made it impossible for couple to have more than 1.8 children. They encouraged women to put on suits and be men, because being woman was not good enough. Now Lulzgul has to invite people like me into his country so we can have 2.2 babies and provide a stable tax base. Of course not everyone is as great as me. They have 5.7 babies and not only do they lack 2 Bachelor degrees and a well paying engineering job, they can barely read and are unemployable. ohohoho, lulgul :)
jergul large member	Sun Feb 18 17:40:08 Nimi Wow. That was so bad an understanding of my positions that it does not even qualify as a straw man. You may want to have a chat with that lulzgul living inside your head. Hood Poor people win in evolutionary terms. End of story. Don't let that stop you from having a nice life. The chances of a male passing on his genes for more than a single digit number of generations is quite small in any event (and trends towards 0 over a longer perspective).
hood Member	Sun Feb 18 17:54:33 "Another piece is simplified trash that would take an afternoon to debunk. TL:DR on the most basic level, yes that is what is going on." Perhaps if you didn't directly contradict yourself a sentence or two later, this would have been less retarded. Maybe don't cite extended phenotypes moments after claiming that dna (first order phenotypes) is the issue at hand. "is "uniquely" tailored for Jergul? What does that even mean?" That means I wouldn't bother bringing up the capacity for mass genocide in a regular discussion of evolution. I only bring it up because jergul has remarkably retarded views on a great many things that all boil down to rooting for the underdog. As nice as that is, the underdog does not have the advantages jergul seems to so convincingly believe they have. "They give "fitness" over others who can field legions of cannon fodder via their higher fecundity." Yes, this was precisely my point. One cannot look at the purely biological (hence my response being to this: "You need go no further than review fertility statistics by economic group to decide who is fittest.") to determine fitness in humans. You seem to be arguing exactly that point, yet doing so by telling me I am wrong for saying what you said. "Try never, we never were this simple, nor are apes or the larger mammals." No. Apes with superior genes will acrue more power overall than those with inferior genes. Their societies still function such that an ape that is sufficiently stronger, more agile, better adapted to survive from a biological standpoint, will. They will have more offspring. The only portion of that which holds true for humans is that biology in humans can have a tangible effect on the number of offspring one has. However, we are not Sparta anymore, discarding the weak, and genetically inferior members of our species regularly have offspring and pass along dna. Your fixation on pure numbers vs few, strong numbers as a clear division between biology vs. alternate factors doesn't hold true. Animals, even apes, are still beholden to biology governing their evolution. Humanity, not so.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 18:12:32 Given how well you explained what I got wrong, I think we can call it a night.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 18:21:37 ”Perhaps if you didn't directly contradict yourself a sentence or two later, this would have been less retarded. Maybe don't cite extended phenotypes moments after claiming that dna (first order phenotypes) is the issue at hand.” Yea this is about the level of comprehension I have come expect from you. Someone who does not understand what ”at the _most basic_ level yes that is what is going on” means in a multi sentenced paragraph. lol :-)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 18 18:27:38 ”However, we are not Sparta anymore, discarding the weak” Or someone who cites extreme outliers as indicative for a species as a whole. _We_ never did idiot, Spartans allegedly did, to what extent you can trust these historical sources and to what extent it was actually going on? Another matter for another class you should attend and that I am not interested in giving you.
hood Member	Sun Feb 18 18:48:20 "Someone who does not understand what ”at the _most basic_ level yes that is what is going on” means in a multi sentenced paragraph." For starters, someone doesn't grasp the concept of calling it done for the night. So fleeting in our decisions, are we? However, your comment was overly retarded because I had made it pretty obvious that I was not discussing "the most basic level." I don't think anyone here disputes that having sex, producing offspring, will pass on dna and "win" evolution. However, I was responding to a specific person with a specific set of opinions and went beyond a discussion of basic evolution. Your inability to discern the context of a discussion results in you going very far off topic. Such retarded ramblings are still retarded, even if "at the most basic level" they are accurate. Sure, they're accurate. But you might as well be talking about how amazing Batman is in an argument about whether Cable or Deadpool would win in a fight. "Or someone who cites extreme outliers as indicative for a species as a whole. _We_ never did idiot" Holy fuck, someone doesn't understand metaphor. Good day.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 02:25:12 Hood You were however contradicting producing offspring will "win" evolution. As that was the point I was making. My fundamental view is that too great income disparity is bad, mkay. It causes irregularities. Like who passes on their genes and who does not. You and sammy are the underdogs from this perspective btw. Not that that should stop you from having nice lives. For what it is worth.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 02:33:13 Your defence seems to be "I was using straw men and red herrings nimi. Because jergul has been mean to me".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 03:59:55 "Your inability to discern the context of a discussion" The context of the "discussion" is that human beings have "ascended the basic concept of evolution". Which is categorically false. You have since kinda changed this and kinda spun this to Spartan metaphors, based on the same faulty premise of "cull the weak", a derivative of the simplistic approach to survival of the fittest that has never been a reproductive strategy for apes or really any specie on the top of the food chain. So I am undecided. "For starters, someone doesn't grasp the concept of calling it done for the night." That was for lulzgul! waaaaa! "Such retarded ramblings are still retarded, even if "at the most basic level" they are accurate. Sure, they're accurate. But you might as well be talking about how amazing Batman is in an argument about whether Cable or Deadpool would win in a fight." Now this^ is funny :) They are "retarded" (simplified), but at the most basic level (most simple level) as I wrote, they are accurate. You wrote accurate twice! And then proceed to talk about comic books. LOL?! Now that is _retarded_. "Holy fuck, someone doesn't understand metaphor." As I explained, you have so far been wrong about everything we have talked about that involves human biology and evolutionary theory. From innate to the basic concept of Evolutionary theory. As a general principle if one does not understand the basics of a subject, one should not try to explain it to others with metaphors. Metaphors are for those that have deep subject knowledge and can operate at higher levels of abstraction.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 04:38:19 Jergul Given how well you explained what I got wrong, I think we can call it a day/week/month/year/life. hood was correct. You think mice and bacteria are "winning" (lulz) evolution. I now put him a couple of shades above you. I admit when I am wrong. No shame in that.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 04:42:43 Wrong again. If you want to get a clue, then get a degree. Take your time. I don't think the normal 2 years will help you much. You can't afford my tutoring you in earnest ;).
hood Member	Mon Feb 19 07:38:37 "My fundamental view is that too great income disparity is bad, mkay." I agree with this. But I don't take that crusade and ignore the reality that the extremely wealthy could wipe out well over 50% of Earth's human population without much effort, all in stark contrast to your beloved fertility. Poor people make more babies. They are not more proficient at guaranteeing the long term success of their genes. We have risen above the point where pure baby making is the prime factor. "That was for lulzgul! waaaaa!" Fair enough. Perhaps learn this thing called addressing your audience. A quote, mentioning their name; either will do. "They are "retarded" (simplified), but at the most basic level (most simple level) as I wrote, they are accurate." Again an inability to understand metaphor. The mention of comic book characters was to easily denote that Batman has absolutely no relevance to a topic between cable and Deadpool. Similarly, the fact that sex makes babies and that is the function of passing along DANA is not the topic here. The topic is whether making more babies is the function of "winning" or if there are methods that circumvent the traditional method of winning. Saying that technically someone wins, in a vacuum, by making babies is completely irrelevant. Much like Batman in a Marvel discussion. The inability to discern this is what makes you retarded, not being able to parrot a basic fact or 2. Even hot rod could read a book and quote it. "you have so far been wrong about everything we have talked about that involves human biology and evolutionary theory." You entered a conversation without understanding the topic, wrote a big ole "hahayourewrong" post that ended up agreeing with me, fought tooth and nail over what you think my point was, and you still call me wrong. Ok, hot rod. I guess if my actual point is not relevant to what I was actually discussing, then you could change the topic of my post to make it what you wa- oh, right. Not hot rod, you're just sebbing it up hardcore. "hood was correct. You think mice and bacteria are "winning" (lulz) evolution." And this was my only point in this entire discussion. One that you agree with. You're fucking retarded. P.S. I am now calling you retarded for having gone through this entire discussion just to actually come to realize that you just fucking agree with me. Were I more paranoid, I would hazard to guess that you've just gone into strike out mode where you must belittle anyone who has wronged you in the past (in this instance, me) because of some asinine emotional need to protect yourself from recalling past moments of weakness. Anything and everything would be seized upon to realize your emotional catharsis. But more likely you just didn't understand words and sebbed it up. It's ok, I'm a forgiving person.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 07:58:38 Hood State control of the tools of oppression. Any democratic or populist model tends to preclude your final solution to the genetic question. If anything, the elite is harder hit in State orchestrated mass-murder events, than the poor. For nuclear wars? Hell, villages outside of New-Delhi might note pretty sunsets, but would otherwise not be impacted in any discernable way (its one of the perks of shitting in fields. Its hard to destroy the facilities).
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 08:01:16 (I am humouring your argument - that the advantage of off-spring is cancelled out by the expectation of mass-murder events that will balance the books and give similar long term genetic survival despite lower procreation rates in preceeding generations).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 10:18:21 "And this was my only point in this entire discussion" Nice try, but no it was not. "humanity has ascended beyond the basic concepts of evolution and survival of the fittest." is not the same as (what you may have wanted to say, I will give you the benefit of doubt here despite the past) "Our understanding of evolutionary theory goes beyond..." or "jergul your understanding of evolution is that of a retards". I prefer the last one. If you do not understand the difference, then I understand English and the construction of sentences far better than you. With the added bonus of people actually say and believe what you wrote, verbatim. "Again an inability to understand metaphor." Metaphors are symbolic for an idea/concept you want to convey, an erroneous idea of human reproductive strategies. Which I understood and responded to, explaining why it was wrong. Invoking the Spartan metaphor was not only unnecessary as I understood what you meant, but also stupid because it only served as doubling down on being wrong, this time with symbolism. This lateral move will get you nowhere. "just didn't understand words" Should not be uttered by someone who does not understand the difference between the above two sentences and the words "innate" and "immutable". I didn't do this because you slipped up once. "It's ok, I'm a forgiving person." #Metoo, but I have been fair here. You can not fault my English. There is more than a slight nuance between "humanity has ascended beyond evolution" and "jergul is an idiot who does not understand evolution" or "innate" and "immutable". Judging by your first response after my first post and the absence of "idiot" and "retard" I am willing to accept that you saw the error, either in your own thinking or the construction of that sentence. I'm gonna let it go now.
hood Member	Mon Feb 19 11:30:20 "or "innate" and "immutable"." You keep bringing this up. Are you referencing an entirely different argument here or something? I ignored this originally, figuring you might have just been confused. However, I have not brought up either word or the concept of either word. Your only reference was to say that I somehow don't understand these words. I admit, I googled just to be sure I wasn't completely insane. So please, if this innate/immutable schtick is in relation to this thread, please go quote the passage from my original post that you were responding to. Or, if it is from arguments past, please provide reference so that I know what you're talking about. "Invoking the Spartan metaphor" Um. Batman was the metaphor this time. The fuck are you going on about with Sparta? In fact, referencing the Spartan metaphor is proof positive of my Batman metaphor. You are just arguing about completely different subjects and then proclaiming victory when I mention that you're correct but irrelevantly off topic. However, you claimed to understand my Spartan metaphor. I would appreciate it if you explained what you think I meant. "If you do not understand the difference" It boils down to what one considers the basic concepts of evolution. As we are discussing jerguls statement, these basic concepts would be his belief that #s of babies > all else. As it stands, this is indeed a pretty basic block of evolution. The ability to pass on DNA is the most basic step of evolution, wherein the ability for that DNA to survive in habitat would be an extremely small step up - small enough to be regularly combined. We seem to both agree that humanity is beyond the # of babies yardstick. You are apparently taking an antagonistic stance to my implied context. That isn't something that will change, but I'll still call you retarded for being unable to grasp that context. "Judging by your first response after my first post and the absence of "idiot" and "retard"" I try not to devolve into name calling immediately (save for special cases, like hot rod). Nothing more.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: