Nobody denies this, but for some reason humans are an exception?
In every mammal, fish, bird, only a very small percentage of males find a mate.
the reason is the fact the humans gathered in groups to live better lives
nausea said:
8000 years ago 1 in every 17 males reproduced
D
Some birds are monogamous for life, but I get your general point. In nature the moose or lion who is the equivalent of Shaquille O'Neal or a champion Olympic wrestler/UFC fighter gets all the women because they can physically defeat every male competitor. Think about what you happen if you and some gigaTyrone like Jon Jones or Anthony Joshua were stranded on an island with a few women. They would get all or most of them, you would get cucked.
In human society we don't let the 6'5 jocks outright kill the betas, and we even use to ration them brides through arranged marriage. If we did live like animals then there would be a mass killing of normies and incels. I remember there were some "tough guys" in high school who if they wanted to could have probably killed me. They were absurdly strong, got into street fights, and were easily capable of fighting most grown men at 17 and 18 years old.
Out current arrangement is that guys like that have an informal harem. They don't openly have multiple partners, but the women cheat on their beta boyfriends with the alpha males and Chads behind closed doors.
In human society we don't let the 6'5 jocks outright kill the betas, and we even use to ration them brides through arranged marriage. If we did live like animals then there would be a mass killing of normies and incels. I remember there were some "tough guys" in high school who if they wanted to could have probably killed me. They were absurdly strong, got into street fights, and were easily capable of fighting most grown men at 17 and 18 years old.
Out current arrangement is that guys like that have an informal harem. They don't openly have multiple partners, but the women cheat on their beta boyfriends with the alpha males and Chads behind closed doors.
I disagree
nausea said:
:skeptical:
H
Guess what? We're all descendants of the same Chad who lived in Africa 60.000 years ago.
you've already been outed as a cucktears user so why are you still hereHomosapicuckus said:
H
rickvanderhammer said:
Yes, I've been outed by a raging, currycel who thinks he can be regarded as Aryan by Hitler.
Make me some curry bitch. I need something to eat.
I completely agree, but unattractive women should not be able to breed as well. It hurts the gene pool and makes other reproducing-unworthy males.
I am not good at writing, I just say that society is at faultrickvanderhammer said:
Homosapicuckus said:
lmao indians are the original ayans cumskin, we will be a superpower in the next 20-30 years while your countries succumb to feminism and jewish plots to exterminate your cucked race
H
rickvanderhammer said:
Let me guess you're that Fractal guy from Apricity.
S
I signed up to answer just this question.
About me - non-virgin currycel in germany - so I do not really belong here .. but to answer your question....
Please note, that people who come up with this explanation are having a bitter fight among themselves to find out if things match or not. Therefore, please take it all with lots of salt, and this will merely be a starting point. This may come across as a cope, but hear me out, gentlemen.
There is a thing called "Fisherian Selection" (you can find it in wiki). Avoiding the details, and ignoring exceptions, it basically means, females keep on choosing for a particular set of traits. The red tailed bird gets the female, for having the "reddest" tail, the lion for the "greatest mane" ...etc. This is way, every species, becomes "more like it" , and gets "locked in" in their traits. Generally, if a species can be supported by the environment, this is the best thing to do. The more that happens, the less like that a species will branch out into other species.
The Betas are the source of evolution tho. Think about it. In the Savannah, the rule is, more or less, "a lone baboon is a dead baboon"... This is why, betas accept the alpha for "security", which by itself is scarce. Therefore, security can never cause the male population to get stagnant. Out of 100 beta baboon, one will try to cross the savanah alone. Out of 10,000 such crossings, one will be probably successful. This baboon, with his different traits, will find a different place to sign.
Example 1: Think of Roosters. The hens will mate with the big mean rooster. That means, in the next generation, even the females can be large. But as the largeness goes on, then the height her egg has to fall will also increase, albeit much slower, for the birds can "kneel" (if you can call it so) to a degree. Now, if the females were in a rocky area, this slight change, over a 100,000 years. will wipe the population out. The beta males with smaller statue will produce smaller offsprings, including smaller females, and they will survive better in rocky area. In plentiful grassland, opposite will occur.
Example 2: There has had been a study, which I can't recall, but basically monkey were kept in a cage, with sugar in pots with small holes. Females usually preferred the the large handed monkey, but now, the small handed betas could find more sugar, and guess what happened.
--------------------
Now, humanity is a freak experiment of nature.
Driven by ethiopian environmental extremes, the beta males who were anyway having the tendency to look for different options, denouncing the alpha-beta hierarchy, eventually found the Ural mountains, and it's plentiful slopes.
From there, they went to europe, and some of them colonized curryland.
See, the beta males drive to renounce the hierachy to find a new spot is what drives everything.
Such a journey will inevitably have to pass through "harsher" conditions. The apes coming out of Ethiopia probably had to endure colder climate of asia minor, and their first exposure will be catastrophic, beside some selected individuals. This procedure is known as "crossing the valley of fitness".
That is the Chad of ethiopian proto human, and the ural protohuman are both better off in their "fitness"/"strength" etc, compared to the intermediate apes in asia-minor ..
(the actual migration route is probably NOT Ethiopia to Ural, but thesis holds)
---------------------
Agricultural humans recognized this. They rose above their instinct to fall into a fisherian runaway selection. That is why things are different in humans.
But with the advent of welfare, state as the big daddy cleaning after the little daughters mess and whims, the environmental pressure is GONE, and the fisherian selection comes back.
So, until things collapse again be overuse, nothing will change.
Please note also, that beta's aren't reproduction unworthy. Beta's carry the evolution on their shoulders, but will always get rejected, once the species has found an environment without immediate pressure.
About me - non-virgin currycel in germany - so I do not really belong here .. but to answer your question....
Please note, that people who come up with this explanation are having a bitter fight among themselves to find out if things match or not. Therefore, please take it all with lots of salt, and this will merely be a starting point. This may come across as a cope, but hear me out, gentlemen.
There is a thing called "Fisherian Selection" (you can find it in wiki). Avoiding the details, and ignoring exceptions, it basically means, females keep on choosing for a particular set of traits. The red tailed bird gets the female, for having the "reddest" tail, the lion for the "greatest mane" ...etc. This is way, every species, becomes "more like it" , and gets "locked in" in their traits. Generally, if a species can be supported by the environment, this is the best thing to do. The more that happens, the less like that a species will branch out into other species.
The Betas are the source of evolution tho. Think about it. In the Savannah, the rule is, more or less, "a lone baboon is a dead baboon"... This is why, betas accept the alpha for "security", which by itself is scarce. Therefore, security can never cause the male population to get stagnant. Out of 100 beta baboon, one will try to cross the savanah alone. Out of 10,000 such crossings, one will be probably successful. This baboon, with his different traits, will find a different place to sign.
Example 1: Think of Roosters. The hens will mate with the big mean rooster. That means, in the next generation, even the females can be large. But as the largeness goes on, then the height her egg has to fall will also increase, albeit much slower, for the birds can "kneel" (if you can call it so) to a degree. Now, if the females were in a rocky area, this slight change, over a 100,000 years. will wipe the population out. The beta males with smaller statue will produce smaller offsprings, including smaller females, and they will survive better in rocky area. In plentiful grassland, opposite will occur.
Example 2: There has had been a study, which I can't recall, but basically monkey were kept in a cage, with sugar in pots with small holes. Females usually preferred the the large handed monkey, but now, the small handed betas could find more sugar, and guess what happened.
--------------------
Now, humanity is a freak experiment of nature.
Driven by ethiopian environmental extremes, the beta males who were anyway having the tendency to look for different options, denouncing the alpha-beta hierarchy, eventually found the Ural mountains, and it's plentiful slopes.
From there, they went to europe, and some of them colonized curryland.
See, the beta males drive to renounce the hierachy to find a new spot is what drives everything.
Such a journey will inevitably have to pass through "harsher" conditions. The apes coming out of Ethiopia probably had to endure colder climate of asia minor, and their first exposure will be catastrophic, beside some selected individuals. This procedure is known as "crossing the valley of fitness".
That is the Chad of ethiopian proto human, and the ural protohuman are both better off in their "fitness"/"strength" etc, compared to the intermediate apes in asia-minor ..
(the actual migration route is probably NOT Ethiopia to Ural, but thesis holds)
---------------------
Agricultural humans recognized this. They rose above their instinct to fall into a fisherian runaway selection. That is why things are different in humans.
But with the advent of welfare, state as the big daddy cleaning after the little daughters mess and whims, the environmental pressure is GONE, and the fisherian selection comes back.
So, until things collapse again be overuse, nothing will change.
Please note also, that beta's aren't reproduction unworthy. Beta's carry the evolution on their shoulders, but will always get rejected, once the species has found an environment without immediate pressure.
Homosapicuckus said:
fractal was exposed as a white troll, only forum i browse is incels.is, try again buddy
Their are still millions of men worldwide who are sexless and wifeless and not by choice. It will only get worse, at least their wasn't such militant feminism and extra help and universal support in life and work for femoids even a few decades ago. Things were better 50 years to a few centuries ago for men overall, especially in the west.
rickvanderhammer said:
Bruh feminism and cultural marxism have already been incubating in Indian society. In fact I remember an interview with a guy who said that India was a testing ground for the Jewish filth we have in the West.
somedude said:
not high iq enough to interpret this post
/pol/cel said:
i'm not even indian lmao
Yeah it is called natural selection, only the strongest organisms procreate. Except for humans, where individuals who take the most showers and who dress nicely do. Just be yourself bro.
Dunarote said:
haha
rickvanderhammer said:
send bob and vegene
>NatGeo special about human prides
>Chads secure the showering hole and Hobby stores
>No other males are found attractive
>17+ mates per Chad
>Chads secure the showering hole and Hobby stores
>No other males are found attractive
>17+ mates per Chad
Cope
incelman said:
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=small]"only the strongest organisms procreate. Except for humans, where individuals who take the most showers and who dress nicely do. Just be yourself bro."
[/font][/size]
great post. unfortunately I don't have anything of value to add.somedude said:
I
Checkmate faggottears
Can i er yet
GeneticDysfunction said:
You may. St blackops2cel blesses you in your mission.
Dingus_Incel said:
Not completely accurate. Betas and chads in pre-agricultural times had a basic agreement that in exchange for the alpha getting to fuck all the women, he had to take most of the responsibilities. The bottom 80% of men could have easily killed the top 20% of men but they didn't because of this arrangement
S
mikepence said:
Can you point me to a source please, where chads were actually taking responsibilities?
Bruh is this true? Can you link something?
S
Newbite said:
are you asking me or the other guy?
somedude said:
"Common chimpanzees use strength, intelligence, and political alliances to establish and maintain alpha position. Alpha males who solely use intimidation and aggression to keep their position often provoke dissent. Coalitions will eventually form, which at some point will topple the alpha male."
Granted, I did get this from Wikipedia but it seems to make sense. I doubt a tribe that was majority beta would let alphas get all the women with nothing in return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)#Controversy
S
mikepence said:
Sounds plausible, like a tribal leader.
But, in many cases, the "intelligence" is merely a deceit. Fooling the beta to think that he needs the "king".
now I will cross every line here, and say this (please order a truckload of salt, before reading this) :
The ape research has taken it's modern shape through feminists like Jane Goodall or something like that, and they have brought in the 60's "liberation" values into it. The re-defined the term intelligence to imply "trickery". Granted, the original definition of intelligence in older English never excluded "trickery", thus the feminists had the ammunition to redefine it.
Intelligence, is a very difficult term to define mathematically. Those of you involved in the world of AI will know, the famous Chinese room problem. Intelligence probably includes some elements of abstract reasoning , not just simply assorting symbols and meanings, or actions and reactions in case of chimps.
The assignment of politics and intelligence in the same sentence "triggered" (teehee) my "probably feminist science" meter.
Back to normal talk, thank you very much, for replying.
S
it's evident in our DNA that throughout anatomically modern human (AMH) history <30% of males reproduced. the neolithic revolution (introduction of pastoralism) was associated with an especially wide variation in reproductive success (where less than <10% of males reproduced), probably due to parallel polygyny
i posted about this shit in some other thread
See Colttain's video @ https://youtu.be/4wpca1ZDIRQ?t=113 for a better understanding of the process and of the Y bottleneck paper ( http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract )
Thoughts about other shit cropping up in this thread:
i posted about this shit in some other thread
subsaharan said:mikepence said:
Good points. Random thoughts:
- "Looks and MS were correlated in those times." Probably true pre-Neolithic revolution (Epipaleolithic/late Pleistocene) -- i.e., before agriculture. Ethnography of foraging ("hunter/gatherer" societies) such as the Hadza, suggest, "Hadza women want a husband who is a good forager, good looking. intelligent. and faithful." ("good forager" here referring to "good hunter" ( https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/Marlowe-hadza-mate-selection-criteria.pdf )
- But the Hadza society is characterized by serial monogamy (or in the TE article's terminology, "serial polygamy") and had very limited "parallel polygamy" (see same link above). I suspect this may be true for most foraging societies, and perhaps generalizable to most of human history (seemingly confirmed by https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Relationships/How_Our_Ancestors_Lived#Were_Our_Ancestors_Monogamous_or_Polygamous? -- but limited citations).
- Y & mtDNA shows only a fraction (1/3rd or less) human males sired children throughout our history:
( http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract ) Also consistent w/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x -- BUT DNA CAN'T differentiate b/w serial monogamy and parallel polygamy, but given what we know about modern day hunter/gatherer societies, it seems likely most of our human history was marked by Chad the hunter siring children primarily in serial monogamous relationships but opportunistically supplemented with side-relationships whenever he can get away with it (pretty much like present-day). Non-Chads (the majority of men) either did not sire children, sired very few, or their children died before reproduction- The above figure and associated article shows the proportion of men reproducing was especially low (<1/10th of men reproducing) during the Holocene period corresponding to the Neolithic Revolution -- which would have been associated with the introduction of pastoralism (e.g., cattle = Money/Status, like present-day South Sudan -- the focus of the TE article) and other forms of agriculture. THIS EXTREMELY low effective male population size is perhaps best explained, in part, by the phenomenon described in the article -- "WINNER-TAKES-ALL" Betabux "parallel polygamy", with far more low Money/Status men (including slaves) completely excluded from reproduction. It seems intuitive that in that period, Money/Status (e.g., including social strata & hereditary caste) >> Looks in determining reproductive success
See Colttain's video @ https://youtu.be/4wpca1ZDIRQ?t=113 for a better understanding of the process and of the Y bottleneck paper ( http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract )
Thoughts about other shit cropping up in this thread:
- Fisherian runaway selection in human evolution has been argued to have contributed to the development of AMH's brain, but I am aware of no such study that suggests a role in the age of behavioral modernity. Please cite literature suggesting otherwise, otherwise I'm going to assume it's application to "agricultural humans" is all bullshit
- "In humans, the concept of an alpha male was challenged as being largely nonexistent per an article by Dean Burnett, who found that human leadership roles vary wildly based on the current social context, and traits attributed to an "Alpha" might be exhibited in one scenario, and traits attributed to a "Beta" might be exhibited in a different scenario by the same individual." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)#Controversy Please cite sources that counter this if you're going to suggest the Alpha/Beta dichotomy has cross-cultural, much less evolutionary, import
rickvanderhammer said:
China is now on turbocharge
somedude said:
Im asking op
And when they do it’s usually by rape.
there is a rare documentary around that documents thismikepence said:
D
Humans aren’t an exception. The vast majority of mammals behave this way, humans do too. Females only want to fuck chad, and males want to fuck EVERY SINGLE female. Anyone who denies this is a bluepilled cuck retard.
Religion was invented to prevent this via marriage, Ten Commandments, etc. Atheism, socialism, and then feminism destroyed it.
Religion was invented to prevent this via marriage, Ten Commandments, etc. Atheism, socialism, and then feminism destroyed it.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
