Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
I have been thinking a lot recently and this particular idea came to my mind. Just thought of sharing this idea. Here it goes:
What if a sizeable amount of people are actually nature's rejects, and no matter how hard they try, they won't be going anywhere.
Well, we all know about survival of the species. If you read carefully, it says survival of the species, not survivial of everyone within that species. We get half of the genes passed down from the mother, and the remaining half passed down from the father. Only a small amount of genes are responsible for our physical appearance, and probably even smaller amount of genes contribute to physical attractiveness (a separate expression). In other words, some genes serve as a general template, so we all look distinguishably human. And some other genes give us the extra fine tuning of our physical features, such as shape of our eyes, eye lids, nose height, jaw line, etc.
In the ideal case of a good looking mother and a good looking father, due to the 50/50 combo, there is still probability that the good looking genes might not be passed down if those desirable genes belong to other 50% that weren't selected out of randomness. Of course the chance of this happening is much higher if there is at least one (either mum or dad) being not good looking. It will be almost total screw up if both are not good looking.
This is probably the reason why even ugly women want good looking men. It's just nature's calling, since two uglies are almost guaranteed of making another ugly offspring. Of course ugly people can still get together, and be 'realistic', but this might only go further down a few more generations, until luck runs out and the not so desirable lineage gets terminated. Meanwhile, the good looking genes flourish from one generation to another. Depending on who gets the good genes, the gene bearers have the ultimate pleasure of life, for just being lucky. The human species as a whole continues to thrive, but on the basis of some collateral damage.
I think this theory is flawed because while yes, some people are just ugly or flawed physically, and that'll be just the way it is, etc, the problem with ugliness today (and maybe in yesteryear too, who knows, with things like lead in everything?) is not majorly because of the hard code, ie, the type of genes, but rather genetic expression. Genetics vs epigenetics. The problem is, they do influence each other, as in, epigenetic expression of the parent due to biological changes or stresses will introduce different genes to the kids, and this is pretty much why and how genes do anything.
Basically, environmental factors account I think much much more than pure genes do, especially as far as things like physical attractiveness go. I think most people without some sort of deformity tend to look OK, assuming they're given the right type of nutrition growing up, exercise, etc. And further more, as far as defects go, this too is somewhat controllable by not having kids too late, which is now becoming common in USA and the West. Obviously, in any group of people, there will be more beautiful people or good looking people, just as there will be smarter people, people more athletic, whatever. But as far as the environmental factors, though, when I was a kid, I was the only one who ate home cooked meals out of all the 3 kids my mom had, and the only one who took fish oil, multivitamins, spirulina supplements, whatever, that my dad bought. I also happened to be the only of my siblings who didn't need braces and came out with perfectly straight teeth. That's a small sort of anecdotal example, but yes.
I think in modern times, beauty basically works like this, as far as who is beautiful and who isn't and why. You either have to be born with good enough genetics to handle basically, extreme abuse and undernourishment by modern dietary and lifestyle trends and still look good. IE, some people will look great sitting around watching TV and eating McDonalds and seemingly be healthy and fine. And these people figuratively are genetic lottery winners or trust fund kids. So with equal conditions, ie, McDonalds and TV, he has better genetics. But someone who's fat and ugly could eat better and exercise and look better than the "hot" guy who eats McDonalds and watches TV all day. For another example, South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc, are many times growing taller than their parents generations, even though both parents are short. Because now they have more calories in their diet, so they weren't just genetically doomed to be short forever, their genes just were expressing to be short, but when their bodies saw and analyzed through the genetic coding (for lack of better words) that there were now enough resources to grow tall, they grew tall. The problem with this is, part of your genetic expression future and whatnot is decided by your parents, not by your conception, but them raising you. So some things are reversible and others aren't. With the taller kids, someone who is undernourished won't grow up as tall as he could be, or someone put under lots of childhood stress, too. But it's not just "boohoo, bad genes I'm short." Even in the case of identical genetics, identical twins, you sometimes get twins of different heights and weights.
Those two guys are identical twins!
What you're bringing up as far as a hypothesis is already somewhat of an official hypothesis already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis This line of thinking is obviously hard wired line of thinking in humans and likely most species. And I'm guessing it's reliable for the species while the variables to control sexiness are hard to control. But nowadays, the variables to control sexual attractiveness are first off, ridiculously easy to screw up, with GMO foods, obesity, no physical activity, various medications people are on, all that. But then on the flipside, to control sexual attractiveness positively, it's also nowadays, ridiculously easy. A guy could be a 120lb weakling with a testosterone level of 100/1100, but then go on drugs and become a 220+lb scary looking bodybuilder, and have kids with frozen sperm. A flat chested woman can get breast implants. Women vastly change their faces with makeup daily, nevermind plastic surgery. So basically, people are now much able to hide over their otherwise normal (but not as impressive) genetics by using artificial means. And this might be kind of unfun for the kids or spouse of the sort of cheating parent on drugs when their kids possibly come out surprisingly genetically weak or not attractive, etc.
So in that light, no, I don't quite believe in the tired cliche of "boohoo just bad genes just kill yourself now" spouted every so often about seemingly everything. Now we're in a strange new world, for better or worse, where genetics probably matters infinitely less than it ever has in the history of the human race because we know so much more about how to control more and more variables of the human machine to make it operate in a certain way or look a certain way, whereas before most people in any population center pretty much all had the same type of variables with not that much deviation, ie, they'd all eat the same and generally have a physically active lifestyle.
The only problem I worry about is long term changes to the human genome to try to adapt to the new stressors of GMO food and various chemicals, or if as you're sot of saying, lots of people dying out due to not adapting. Hell, you could argue even HA is about the people who cannot adapt to modern mating and feminism. But what you're saying is not a "natural" thing for humans since recorded history, as generally with arranged marriages, most men would get married. And this was egalitarian. This is the joy of being human, you can override your simple base biology and do something better. We build rocket ships to go to space, bridges, ect. So in this case, we have marriage as a simple plan meant to guarantee everyone getting a chance to mate, and then survival of the species, by having the most offspring. But now with marriage evaporating in the West and birthrates down, it's another experiment. Polygamy went away in most human cultures for example, because it didn't work. It was not sustainable, it's greedy, and lost it's use. One guy wanting 10 wives deprives 10 other men of their wives. So under that scenario, the current state of today is very much like the very old days with polygamy, some people really win and some people really lose. The question remains whether this all is a short term experiment for the annals of history, or if this is a long term change in all of humanity's mating habits.
1000 knives.I never discount the role environmental factors play, but bear in mind its role is rather minimal. Genes are no doubt the dominant contributor. I'll guesstimate 80/20, 80 for genes, 20 for good diet, sports, lifestyle habits etc. Take a young Winston for example. He's not going to turn into one of those 'hot asian male model' (for some visual ideas, just Google search the exact phrase and visit the first few links that appear). The same goes for average white guys, whom insane amount of tweaking the environmental factors and pumping iron is never going to make them the alpha. I think you might struggle a bit in understanding this. To help you, a simple analogy would be: having tuition lessons will of course make you score better in exam, but you won't turn into Einstein or Newton. All women go for the best men. An 'enhanced' average man will still find it difficult, and can still fall into the 'disposable section' in dating market. Get it?
My idea may have a little relation to the sexy son hypothesis, but they are not the same. My idea is not any grand theory or hypothesis, and the intention is not to impress from an intelligence perspective. Quite the contrary, it is something logically known and blatantly obvious, though not keenly made aware for whatever reasons. My idea can be summarised like this: the evolutionary process is perfect as a whole, though flaw if you focus on certain subsets. It's like a machine churning products in a factory. While the machine is optimised to have minimal rejection rate, it still nevertheless, churn out faulty products. This is life.
The idea is not about 'boohoo just bad genes just kill yourself now'. That is childish. In fact, I am highly against the very idea of committing suicide. However, I do think it is important to realise and acknowledge which side you are on. If you are the pretty and sexy, good for you. But if you are not, then the best a person can do is acknowledge this, and come up with solutions appropriate to his personal circumstances. This is very important, because most anger. hatred, depression and pent-up frustration lie in not accepting who you really are. This lead to the brain constantly questioning why you don't get treated the ways you think you deserve. It is that Elliot Rodger's scenario. If he accepted and acknowledged, he would have come up with a solution appropriate with his situation. Driving to a park, jealousy upon seeing a couple faraway, video-taping himself ranting are not solutions appropriate to his circumstances.
We all know being rich can get hot women regardless of looks. Why not cut the moral and ethics bull crap and go get some hot women falling all over himself? Instead, Elliot put on his imaginary alpha coat and mentally masturbated to the idea that he is an alpha catch. He could only live so long in that fantasy land, as we had already seen. He's not ugly, though he's not alpha catch either. But with his wealthy family background, he could go to eastern europe and bag home a hot blonde or two.