i mean they have a fair point. Everyday birds are eaten by cats, and cats eaten by coyotes, etc. Top of the food chain gets to win. So why not?
Blackpill Why SHOULDN'T we listen to Darwinists and just realize we are not meant to reproduce?
No, you are assuming that the whole conglomerate of reproduction is based on the voluntariness of foids. And that is false. Darwinism does not influence whether you reproduce or not, but the artificiality in which society through sophisticated coercive mechanisms make most men understand that it is more profitable to be a virgin or a escortcel rather than rape a foid and reproduce.
The decision is ultimately yours, in videogame.
The decision is ultimately yours, in videogame.
because darwinism is cucked and cringe
ok what is your counterargument for it.
do you mean social darwinists? they're just retards
and carnivores ('top of the food chain') are often less numerous than hebivorous prey. typically, both are important to the ecosystem
darwinism by itself isn't prescriptive, and only states that organisms each individually have the drive towards continuance of their genes. so they can't 'not' be meant to reproduce, because their genes naturally aim to reproduce
so incels being denied this might have a negative psychological effect on them, and in modern society this creates a widening social issue which should be taken seriously
and carnivores ('top of the food chain') are often less numerous than hebivorous prey. typically, both are important to the ecosystem
darwinism by itself isn't prescriptive, and only states that organisms each individually have the drive towards continuance of their genes. so they can't 'not' be meant to reproduce, because their genes naturally aim to reproduce
so incels being denied this might have a negative psychological effect on them, and in modern society this creates a widening social issue which should be taken seriously
Unfortunately for him there's no counterargument because evolution is proven
have a hard time reading it.
Rephrase.
Or hypothesis: you're saying social dawinism doesn't advocate for us to stop breeding so ones only women are attracted to can?
but this whole thing is a distraction tbh
in modern western society, you have both promiscuous sex and DECLINING fertility rates
so a darwinist, reproduction-centric model doesn't seem that relevant, as it assumes that reproduction is a priority when humans often deliberately avoid it
in modern western society, you have both promiscuous sex and DECLINING fertility rates
so a darwinist, reproduction-centric model doesn't seem that relevant, as it assumes that reproduction is a priority when humans often deliberately avoid it
I don't mean real darwinism I mean colloquial darwinists who say that we should NOT breed. Because survival of the fittest/ passing genes on incumbency.
Thats because contraception doesnt exist in nature and is very unnatural. Sex not leading to pregnancy is NOT normal
Darwinism is hard to swallow but its true. Evolution has been proven, not a single religion has proven to be true
O
Thats like someone stealing your food and then telling you to believe its how nature works and you should accept it.
Animals also don't have farms, houses, hospitals and clothing etc. Should we abandon those as well?
that's just a nonsensical belief, 'natural selection' and evolution aren't prescriptive beliefs
telling organisms NOT to reproduce contradicts their natural impulse to reproduce
the whole idea of social darwinists is retarded, they're saying that evolution is the way things are and is natural, and then advocating for changing the way things are to fit their idea of 'evolution.' irl, everything is natural on some level, and social darwinism is just retarded moralfagging
Then I recommend that you read it carefully, because I believe that I have been as precise as possible in my expression. Although, as nobody is perfect, I will rephrase the question.
I consider that first there is Darwinism, which is the mechanism that justifies who reproduces or not, and how species evolve favoring the most optimal characteristics for the environment and ending with all those that are inefficient -or that are considered as not optimal for a foid, and in civilization, they are primary or aesthetic characteristics-.
Social Darwinism can advocate eugenics and be as cucked as it wants to be to create a mass of top-tier men, while it can equally end up eugenizing “low quality” women while only allowing 10% of the population to reproduce, but, the ultimate goal is reproduction itself, not the quality of the progeny, because, the quality of the progeny is determined in survival: you, for example, supposed incel, belong to a huge lineage of men, which has brought you here after millions of years of evolution, yet, your genetic deathend is based on the voluntariness of a foid, which is considered the selector which gonna determine if you are worthy of reproducing or not, which is basically, cucking your chances.
You either withdraw reproducing or you either risk getting jailed for a long time or lifetime for reproducing. In videogame.
the modern phenomenon of inceldom is caused by social phenomena like feminism which aren't reducible to darwinian terms, and which have often led to a decrease in reproduction. a social fabric which is dictated primarily by foids, with decreasing fertility rates, and where things like rape are prohibited, is not something that can be reasonably explained in purely darwinian terms
Personally I blame tv, hypercommunication, people living in fantasies (women), edginess being unironically somehow cool no matter what, sensory burnout, They can live in their dream and its our job to meet it, or we're sexist for taking their jobs away or forcing them to be ladylike.
Result? downfall of civilization and africans are reproducing the most. We need artificial DNA.
ofc hand maid's tale.
personally I think existentialism abcxyzism talk is pretentious. We're creatures that love to be impressive to people while naturally trying to reverse our ego-wounds through cynical intuitions and making sense of predatory humans so we can take their place. Hence why jews make up their fake chosen people narrative, or blacks wuz kangz. White people have nazism/ atlantis but its so taboo its not gonna mean anyhting anymore.
I wasn't saying darwinism was the driving mechanism. I meant what do you think of THEIR STANCE where we should not reproduce.
If darwinism drove shit we'd make Arnold Schwarz types give all their sperm to peopl on the average with enough bio diversity. Darwinism hasn't really mattered in over 3000+ years in this regard in most cases.
As even derpy babboon places except africa have arranged marriage situations like india and china.
Because darwinism is bs. It’s a economic theory trying to larp as natural science.
Mendel is legit and observable, Darwin is not
yea, human psychology is typically quite repetitive and simplistic
for example, right-wingers use the same rhetoric and reasoning in discussing economic inequality as IT members do in discussing inceldom, and most movements will characterize themselves as the victims being oppressed by someone else
people often miss just how generic their belief systems are
ok so what do you think of women who say we should not reproduce because we are ugly. or anyone who says anything similar.
Then what's your argument for saying we should reproduce? what is hte ideological stance for women to turn off their screens and care about hte common person again enough to be "ok lets have kids"
Women view men like sports cars now.
I'm not sure what Darwinism is, but if I had to guess based on your comments, it's probably a type of eugenics that says the inferiors shouldn't have children. First of all, I think it is correct to say that we should not have children Even if it sounds insulting. Unless everyone who is better looking than us one day dies away, our children will be lower in the hierarchy and their lives will be miserable. However, I do not believe that this kind of eugenics increases the total amount of happiness that humans can enjoy. Because when we don't have children, the children of normies just above us will form the lower class.
In a future where we have no children, if normies realize that they are the lowest class, they will also stop having children, and this process will continue until it applies to the highest class. Even among chads, a hierarchy would develop, with the lower ranks among them attaining the status of today's incels.
Considering this, the claim of Darwinism itself is true, but it is questionable whether Darwinism has any meaning. Darwinism seeks to eliminate or reduce the suffering caused by inferiority in the world by prohibiting the reproduction of inferior individuals, but inferior individuals cannot be eliminated from the world. The result of Darwinism is only population decline caused by the lower classes not having children.
Even if the upper class will have children, population decline cannot be avoided because there will be a limit to the number of children they can support. It may be possible to fundamentally eliminate human suffering through population decline and the resulting extinction of the human species, but then why do they advocate Darwinism instead of anti-natalism? I am an anti-natalist because I believe that the lower classes cannot structurally disappear from human society.
I don't know exactly what Darwinism is, so I could be wrong.
In a future where we have no children, if normies realize that they are the lowest class, they will also stop having children, and this process will continue until it applies to the highest class. Even among chads, a hierarchy would develop, with the lower ranks among them attaining the status of today's incels.
Considering this, the claim of Darwinism itself is true, but it is questionable whether Darwinism has any meaning. Darwinism seeks to eliminate or reduce the suffering caused by inferiority in the world by prohibiting the reproduction of inferior individuals, but inferior individuals cannot be eliminated from the world. The result of Darwinism is only population decline caused by the lower classes not having children.
Even if the upper class will have children, population decline cannot be avoided because there will be a limit to the number of children they can support. It may be possible to fundamentally eliminate human suffering through population decline and the resulting extinction of the human species, but then why do they advocate Darwinism instead of anti-natalism? I am an anti-natalist because I believe that the lower classes cannot structurally disappear from human society.
I don't know exactly what Darwinism is, so I could be wrong.
I don't really have one. I don't have any strong feelings apropos reproduction. All I'm saying is that your argument, the way I understand it, is balderdash to me.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
