friendly reminder that there will ALWAYS be an undesirable subhuman tier of men

[Autistcel]

Even if sub5 men and women never breeded with anyone ever, as Chad's keep breeding, more and more Chad's get born . Those Chad's are often better looking than the parent Chad and female Chad equivalent. Then they breed and make even better kids. Over many generations what is considered top tier will change and the entire psl rating system will take a massive shift, what is currently a normie may be a Chad after a few dozen generations. Then what is currently Chad would be normie level. No matter what , females will always go for the top tier men. There will always be a bottom level no matter how good looking they are as long as someone looks better.

 

[i_a_m_i]

Looks aren't relative.

 

[Autistcel]

Looks aren't relative.

Good looking men will keep getting better and better looking. What is now Chad will not be Chad if people look better in the future

 

[Machiavelli]

currently there is more men than women in the world

even if everyone had a perfect looksmatch in an ideal world, some guys still be left out

at least some percentage of the population will be incel at any point in time

 

[JovanD]

Looks aren't relative.

They are.

 

[i_a_m_i]

Good looking men will keep getting better and better looking. What is now Chad will not be Chad if people look better in the future

It's impossible to continually breed better looking people. Eventually it will plateau.

Also, eugenics would not only reduce the number of objectively ugly people, it would also reduce the huge looks inequality. There would be far less difference between two people on opposite ends of the looks distribution. Looks would have far less meaning if there were not much variation in attractiveness among humans.

 

[Autistcel]

It's impossible to continually breed better looking people. Eventually it will plateau.

Also, eugenics would not only reduce the number of objectively ugly people, it would also reduce the huge looks inequality. There would be far less difference between two people on opposite ends of the looks distribution. Looks would have far less meaning if there were not much variation in attractiveness among humans.

Nature would still take over. The gap will be much smaller but just like in animals not all will pass on their genes. Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. Even if there is a 1% variance in looks, the top people will still be more desirable. The only solution is to be all entirely clones so that looks play no part whatsoever and personality is what attracts a person in that situation.

 

[i_a_m_i]

They are.

Looks are objective. Chad would not become intrinsically 'less' attractive if incels were eliminated. So Chad's attractiveness is not relative.

 

[Autistcel]

Looks are objective. Chad would not become intrinsically 'less' attractive if incels were eliminated. So Chad's attractiveness is not relative.

But now Chad isn't top tier. There are now people higher than Chad. Current day Chad will one day become considered normie range as the top 1% of humans gets better looking. Yes it will plateau eventually but I feel like humanity is very far from that point.

 

[universallyabhorred]

Even chads breeding with stacies would still produce ugly incel tier males.