people were ugly a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries tho. Just more typically roman statue looking whites back then because most jungle ppl didn't have the modern medicine etc. to breed.
for chinks its the first option repeated in extreme for 40000 years to get this anomination
do you think that asians are gonna decline rapidly. because their women are status whores and proud of it. and the men literally lost all testosterone being agricultural for too long.
We are going extinct, which is good since this cult should never have existed. I predict the last full blooded chink will be gone before 2150 and definitely before 2200. The last real influence chinks have on the genepool will probably be gone by 2600
Nah its all genetic. If doft diets are really to blame for bad jawlines than there wouldnt be any zoomer chads left which we can see isnt true
I believe that Abrahamic religions have contributed the most to the issue. For centuries, religion has indoctrinated people into prioritizing "moral values" and one's beliefs over physical appearance.
Wars and the rape that followed? For example, the Moorish conquest and the associated raping in southern Europe.
I was thinking of that too but that didn’t happen everywhere.
its not good tbh. nigs and beaners shouldn't b the majority.
thats what number 3 is
Yes, it’s nature. Chinks are a deformed cursed inbreeding cult of suffering.
ok how do you figure that. "cult"?
This is the biggest factor, along with technology
what would women in the 50s to 80s think of celebrities then. abstract nonavailable gods.
What do you think of the boomer millennial gaslighters who act like we’re just filled with anxiety.
The invention of enforced religion and enforced monogamy has and had nothing to do with the wombs of women that are usually dysgenic by default by their own accord, since every pregnant woman has a 3-5% chance of their offspring being born with congenital deformities, and nothing apart from advanced genetic engineering will be able to fix it. Women can't even produce the tall and handsome men that they desire for mating partners 99% of the time, since genetic recombination always caps it to a point. Bone structure is completely random most of the time, just look at the parents of attractive male models/actors (Leonardo Di Caprio's parents is an ideal example of this) and you'll see that most of them are average looking, you can only say that height and phenotype are really able to be fully inherited. There's legit no difference functionally between a chad and below average looking man of the same phenotype, apart from a few centimeters of bone in leg and a few milimeters on the face.
www.discovermagazine.com
Where did you get that from? There is no correlation between jutting bone structure that makes one physically attractive and a 'mysterious gene' that causes them to suddenly not think of reproducing? Attractive people have more extrapair mating options in this current life history, so they have more of an incentive to reproduce, so there's no reason as to why they wouldn't be succeeding in mating opportunities. Women have complete freedom over their sexual selection, unlike for men (the sexual selection of men has completely been muted since there is no actual direct male onfighting like what was going on in our ancestral environment) to choose the fathers of their offspring, and these fathers will always be successful enough to reproduce.
Holy shit, I'm completely amazed! You're just showing off your high IQ now.The invention of enforced religion and enforced monogamy has and had nothing to do with the wombs of women that are usually dysgenic by default by their own accord, since every pregnant woman has a 3-5% chance of their offspring being born with congenital deformities, and nothing apart from advanced genetic engineering will be able to fix it. Women can't even produce the tall and handsome men that they desire for mating partners 99% of the time, since genetic recombination always caps it to a point. Bone structure is completely random most of the time, just look at the parents of attractive male models/actors (Leonardo Di Caprio's parents is an ideal example of this) and you'll see that most of them are average looking, you can only say that height and phenotype are really able to be fully inherited. There's legit no difference functionally between a chad and below average looking man of the same phenotype, apart from a few centimeters of bone in leg and a few milimeters on the face.
It is clear that women's wombs will also keep mutating new teratogens and genetic deformities no matter what attempt you make to prevent it, and killing or neuteuring ugly and short men will do nothing to solve that problem. If you kill off the bottom percentile of undesirable short men, the next bottom percentile will replace their role, until it leads to literal human extinction or the tallest man remaining who would then go on to ruin the gene pool and raise the mutational load in the populace because negative alleles would then be combined and passed onto the offspring that would reproduce afterwards, probably creating many inbred babies with their brains inside out or something lol, and the only advantage is them being taller than average, but the height hierarchy will remain so legit nothing will have changed because, the cycle will restart again with the gene pool being full of retarded inbred tallfags, and this would legit lead to human extinction because they probably wouldn't be able to survive for a single second in our ancestral environment.
Female sexual selection was also proved disastrous with the advent of the Agricultural revolution. Many women willingly left their paleolithic environment to reproduce with neolithic farmers because of higher perceived survability and greater food production, only for their children to be born unhealthier and shorter because of wheat and grain replacing the diet they would have had in paleolithic societies:
Early Farmers Were Sicker and Shorter Than Their Forager Ancestors
Early Farmers Were Sicker and Shorter Than Their Forager Ancestors
Also, a good face didn't do you any good in our ancestral environment anyways. Could it have save you from a stronger ugly man punching you to death? Few milimeters of bone structure wouldn't do shit when it comes to that. Also, short men with a stronger muscle mass in our ancestral environment did way better than tall men in survival. They also took up less resources too. You can look at it in animal species too. Why did mammoths die out whilst their shorter related counterparts, elephants, still exist? It's because their bodies used up more food. There's also an extinct species of babirusa that went extinct because of the female members constantly choosing males with big horns, and the offsprings horns' started to grow into their skulls and killed them all.
Also, short and ugly women are more responsible than short and ugly men because 51% of overall genetic makeup of sons comes from mothers. Ugly and short men should always have an incentive to reproduce more because ugly and short women will always be more responsible for creating subhumans than them. And this confirms that female sexual selection has no correlation with genetic fitness or the survival of species, so it's a completely own different thing from natural selection itself, Fisherian runway exists for a reason. Only strength and intelligence should be eugenic traits, and allowing female sexual selection won't do shit at all for that too.
Where did you get that from? There is no correlation between jutting bone structure that makes one physically attractive and a 'mysterious gene' that causes them to suddenly not think of reproducing? Attractive people have more extrapair mating options in this current life history, so they have more of an incentive to reproduce, so there's no reason as to why they wouldn't be succeeding in mating opportunities. Women have complete freedom over their sexual selection, unlike for men (the sexual selection of men has completely been muted since there is no actual direct male onfighting like what was going on in our ancestral environment) to choose the fathers of their offspring, and these fathers will always be successful enough to reproduce.
If anything, it's because of how women especially in the west, utilise synthetic unnatural methods to prevent pregnancy, like contraceptives and birth control. They do it to avoid the consequences of giving birth, and to try and prolong their neverending quest of finding a sexually desirable man enough that they find attractive enough to reproduce with, and the vast majority of them fail in that quest, either ending up as single mothers in their 30s because of chasing a man with too many extrapair opportunities (99% of the time bad fathers who have low parental investment and would not ensure the survival of these offspring in an ancestral environment), and many of their children have higher rates of autism, down syndrome, and congenital deformities because of the mean age women are reproducing at nowadays.
Based RCB enjoyerThe invention of enforced religion and enforced monogamy has and had nothing to do with the wombs of women that are usually dysgenic by default by their own accord, since every pregnant woman has a 3-5% chance of their offspring being born with congenital deformities, and nothing apart from advanced genetic engineering will be able to fix it. Women can't even produce the tall and handsome men that they desire for mating partners 99% of the time, since genetic recombination always caps it to a point. Bone structure is completely random most of the time, just look at the parents of attractive male models/actors (Leonardo Di Caprio's parents is an ideal example of this) and you'll see that most of them are average looking, you can only say that height and phenotype are really able to be fully inherited. There's legit no difference functionally between a chad and below average looking man of the same phenotype, apart from a few centimeters of bone in leg and a few milimeters on the face.
It is clear that women's wombs will also keep mutating new teratogens and genetic deformities no matter what attempt you make to prevent it, and killing or neuteuring ugly and short men will do nothing to solve that problem. If you kill off the bottom percentile of undesirable short men, the next bottom percentile will replace their role, until it leads to literal human extinction or the tallest man remaining who would then go on to ruin the gene pool and raise the mutational load in the populace because negative alleles would then be combined and passed onto the offspring that would reproduce afterwards, probably creating many inbred babies with their brains inside out or something lol, and the only advantage is them being taller than average, but the height hierarchy will remain so legit nothing will have changed because, the cycle will restart again with the gene pool being full of retarded inbred tallfags, and this would legit lead to human extinction because they probably wouldn't be able to survive for a single second in our ancestral environment.
Female sexual selection was also proved disastrous with the advent of the Agricultural revolution. Many women willingly left their paleolithic environment to reproduce with neolithic farmers because of higher perceived survability and greater food production, only for their children to be born unhealthier and shorter because of wheat and grain replacing the diet they would have had in paleolithic societies:
Early Farmers Were Sicker and Shorter Than Their Forager Ancestors
Early Farmers Were Sicker and Shorter Than Their Forager Ancestors
Also, a good face didn't do you any good in our ancestral environment anyways. Could it have save you from a stronger ugly man punching you to death? Few milimeters of bone structure wouldn't do shit when it comes to that. Also, short men with a stronger muscle mass in our ancestral environment did way better than tall men in survival. They also took up less resources too. You can look at it in animal species too. Why did mammoths die out whilst their shorter related counterparts, elephants, still exist? It's because their bodies used up more food. There's also an extinct species of babirusa that went extinct because of the female members constantly choosing males with big horns, and the offsprings horns' started to grow into their skulls and killed them all.
Also, short and ugly women are more responsible than short and ugly men because 51% of overall genetic makeup of sons comes from mothers. Ugly and short men should always have an incentive to reproduce more because ugly and short women will always be more responsible for creating subhumans than them. And this confirms that female sexual selection has no correlation with genetic fitness or the survival of species, so it's a completely own different thing from natural selection itself, Fisherian runway exists for a reason. Only strength and intelligence should be eugenic traits, and allowing female sexual selection won't do shit at all for that too.
Where did you get that from? There is no correlation between jutting bone structure that makes one physically attractive and a 'mysterious gene' that causes them to suddenly not think of reproducing? Attractive people have more extrapair mating options in this current life history, so they have more of an incentive to reproduce, so there's no reason as to why they wouldn't be succeeding in mating opportunities. Women have complete freedom over their sexual selection, unlike for men (the sexual selection of men has completely been muted since there is no actual direct male onfighting like what was going on in our ancestral environment) to choose the fathers of their offspring, and these fathers will always be successful enough to reproduce.
If anything, it's because of how women especially in the west, utilise synthetic unnatural methods to prevent pregnancy, like contraceptives and birth control. They do it to avoid the consequences of giving birth, and to try and prolong their neverending quest of finding a sexually desirable man enough that they find attractive enough to reproduce with, and the vast majority of them fail in that quest, either ending up as single mothers in their 30s because of chasing a man with too many extrapair opportunities (99% of the time bad fathers who have low parental investment and would not ensure the survival of these offspring in an ancestral environment), and many of their children have higher rates of autism, down syndrome, and congenital deformities because of the mean age women are reproducing at nowadays.
