- Jan 23, 2020
- 23h 56m
This post will focus specifically on the human race while using animal studies as a base reference. Anthropologists, social scientists, normies and PUAs can justify describing human behavior in terms of their 'primitive animal brain' then it is only fair that this thread be allowed to do the same.
Sexual selection is the selection of mates (overwhelmingly done by females), to select the 'best' male to propagate with. This selection process is entirely based on the whims and wants of the female species. As a contrast, this is entirely different from natural selection where the best candidates for survival/propagation are determined by the environment.
With this being said, it should be noted that the argument of women selecting the best genes because of natural selection is a wholly incorrect statement. Women select purely on sexual selection and this selection process likely does not benefit to the human race as a whole, and may even impede the human race to survive.
The image above is the skeleton of the Irish Elk, featuring it's impressively sized antlers. They were one of the largest deer species to have ever lived and successfully populated almost half the globe from Ireland to Eastern China. Unfortunately they went extinct more than 7000 years ago and to a large part due to sexual selection. With the females of their species being their undoing.
It's a well known fact in biology that there is a doctrine of 'use it or lose it'. Genetically for humans and for most life forms on Earth, our bodies value energy the most, and will aggressively attempt to save energy in the form of fat storage, or by reabsorbing body structures that consume excess metabolic energy (like large muscles that are being underutilized if those structures are not used regularly). This can be easily seen in astronauts, who are supposedly in peak human condition, return to earth disheveled and suffering from muscular atrophy from disuse in long term micro gravity exposure. This is actually an extremely useful adaptive feature which allows organisms to survive long periods of food shortages and to generally survive longer.
In the case of the Irish Elk, this base need to efficiently conserve energy was counteracted by the excessive sexual selection of it's females, that always demanded larger and larger antlers to decide on attractive mates. These antlers are a big deal, and are a massive metabolic commitment (and also completely pointless). Unfortunately for the species, this irrelevant requirement for the survival of the species is what caused its extinction. Either by the males' reaching the limit of what can be possible for antler size (and females no longer being impressed and no longer mating) or by the fact that the antlers were so large that it interfered with its ability to adapt to its environment. Either way, their extinction was purely because the females demanding things that were completely irrelevant to their survival (like being good at finding food, or caring for their young). Their bodies no longer able to support itself with the massive metabolic cost of keeping antlers around.
"Playing the role of orthogenesis is the relentless power of sexual selection. The antlers got bigger and bigger as the Irish elk stags advertised their quality. Each year they lost these monstrous growths and regenerated them the following year. As the shrubby woodlands in which the Irish elk lived began to shrink at the end of the last Ice Age, the animals could no longer get enough food to fuel those giant antlers, and they died. Sexually selected suicide, in other words. " - Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (17 Jul 1992) by Stephen Jay Gould
The Irish Elk has not been an isolated issue either. A study from 2003 focusing on birds indicated "mean population fitness of species with high intensities of post-mating sexual selection may be especially low if costs associated with multiple mating are high or if the selection load imposed by post-mating selection is higher relative to that of pre-mating sexual selection." - University of Sussex and university of Windsor (October 2003)
Studies as recent as 2018 has indicated that sexual selection has been a major determining factor in the majority of extinctions in the Earth's history: "By analyzing thousands of fossilized ancient crustaceans, a team of scientists found that devoting a lot of energy to the competition for mates may compromise species' resilience to change and increase their risk of extinction. " - Smithsonian (April 11, 2018 )
The human species
Anthropological studies have indicated that modern humans have significantly smaller brains compared to our ancient counterparts, which included the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. What made the human race unique in the animal kingdom was our disproportionately large brains to our body mass. While it may seem that we are still more intelligent than our predecessors, it's mainly due to readily available information being provided to us by technology that offsets this. Ancient humans however had to rely heavily on creativity, tool making, navigation and determination which necessitate increased brain mass.
People may argue that "if our ancient cousins were so intelligent, then why did they go extinct?", and the answer is simple; it's evident that females did not value intelligence or cranial size. They simply selected on qualities that were completely irrelevant to their survival (likely because they never were involved in hunting parties and never could appreciate the importance of intelligence over something comparatively less important like height or muscle mass). Eventually the Neanderthals and other hominids went extinct, ironically leaving the smaller, weaker (and arguably dumber) Homo Sapien male counterparts to inherit what's left. The loss had been so severe that we still have people in Africa who can't figure out how to farm.
Why human sexual selection makes no sense
Human females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species. In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Even up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.
For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.
There will be a time where human females will keep demanding taller and taller mating partners with smaller and smaller brains, resulting in misshapen and maladapted human beings. They will very likely call for 6'2 males and progress to call for 6'4 and so on.
We do in fact have people who are monstrously tall today and they suffer from a myriad of problems, because like the Irish Elk, the human body simply isn't equipped to handle the immense physical stress from the unrealistic proportions demanded by the female species. People who are 7'0 tall already suffer from serious ailments such as joint erosion, heart failure, osteoporosis and an overall higher mortality rate. All the product of relentless sexual selection pressure for no other reason than women like it that way.
It's also no surprise that the vast majority of the prison population are made of hyper masculine and aggressive males, because these are traits that were ultimately selected for by females. But this makes no sense in terms of natural selection because very high testosterone levels predisposes these types of males to be too aggressive; they become uncooperative and exhibit maladaptive behaviors that threaten tribal cohesion. They are less likely to care for and look after their offspring and may even kill them. They have higher drives to only procreate and spend little or not time being creative, or learning skills (if their intelligence allows them for it). They are less likely to share food and resources. They are in prison for this reason because they cannot fit into civilized society.
Yet, more than half of prison misconduct occurs between male inmates, and female prison guards.
Is there hope left?
About 80% of human males are the unattractive 'betas' because of our evolutionary heritage, and also because a few clever ancestors devised a societal system where the provisioning of partners were evenly distributed based on merit. Unfortunately that societal system has eroded over the last few hundred years and part of the reason why women are disgusted by 80% of these men were because those men 'prevented them having their fun'. Yet, despite having maladaptive hyper masculine animals in prison, women will still seek them out (and unaccounted drug dealers/gangsters/crime lords, etc.) for producing offspring. Worst case scenario is that they may even engage in degenerate behavior such fornicating with animals to satisfy their sexual needs.
Unfortunately I don't have the answers and its my personal opinion that the human race is doomed by the way of the Irish Elk, Pandas and many other species where the females prefer extinction and/or genetic regression as opposed to mating with what they deem as a 'not good enough male'.