Academic Morons and Darwin

My faith in “academia” continues to decline…

I “hate” virtually nothing in life. It’s just life. But, I hate deeply anything that stops a person from reaching the apex of their potential. All people. Anyone. I want all humans to do whatever they can to maximize their abilities and positive impact on humanity (with reasonable trade offs - because, humans).

Yet, now we’re using Darwin to justify mediocrity.

Apparently, some egg heads from The University of East Anglia have noted the following:

Darwin’s theory upended? Natural selection may be making society more unequal

www.studyfinds.org...

First… no kidding? It’s survival of the fittest. Did they think we would all dilute into being the same thing? As long as society has preferences and resource scarcity, there will be some form of inequality. Preference and resource scarcity create the modern form of survival since we have largely eradicated the need to hunt, gather, find shelter, or defend ourselves against the “natural world” if you live in a first world country - the definition of “fittest” changed.

Ironically, without inequality, there would be no opportunity or motivation to improve. Why would you? Everything is the same. This is no different than capitalism - without reward, you don’t get innovation.

Rather than including the above points, the study failed to account for all sorts of consideration and instead drew this conclusion:

“We found that 23 out of 33 polygenic scores were significantly linked to a person having more or fewer children over their lifetime,” explains Hugh-Jones. “Scores which correlated with lower earnings and education predicted having more children, meaning those scores are being selected for from an evolutionary perspective.”

Derp.

The list of points the study fails to take into account is not short - a non-exhaustive list of considerations includes:

- low income people are less intelligent about their reproductive habits, so you get more of them.
- The population of “useless eaters” materially exceeds the population that feeds them in quantity.
- People with opportunities beyond having kids (job, career, experiences) don’t default to having large families (typically).
- The “intelligent” or “high wage earners” have fewer children, but put more resources into the ones they have.
- Successful men and attractive women can be far more selective regarding their partner, and often have many ambitions alongside creating more humans.
- Lots of government assistance/incentives/welfare for those who are poor and pop out a lot of kids - it becomes a source of income to have more children.
- More!

The study appears to omit that desirable traits are rarer and a result of the compounding effect of the very thing the article is based on - natural selection.

The difference is, not being “the fittest” no longer means the fit killing the weak - or the “fittest” surviving the harshness of the natural world. So, you end up with more of the modern “weak” because society keeps them alive, fed, and sheltered. Society supports them via social programs, which only makes more “weakness” possible. Society, businesses, corporations, etc. are all pyramids - closer to the top you get, fewer there are.

“Modern weak” folk, in the context of Darwin, are those who are depressed, down, don’t care for their own health, have bad eating habits, talk down on successful people to feel better, have given up, never cared, have low self-worth, want something for nothing, seek handouts and ways up, rely on others for their existence, leaches, addicts, and more.

For instance, men with means can be far more selective in their partners. So, they find beautiful/educated/wealthy/strong/etc. women. They then create offspring in small quantities. Those products of the successful male and desirable female then have the resources of that family out into them. The cycle then, in many cases, repeats.

That is natural selection, and the “fittest” widening the gap against the less fit. We’ve started to compound two races of human.

Unlike Darwin’s era, survival of the fittest no longer means dying or being slayed. It means people’s quality of life, experiences, stability, influence, and power are all enhanced - which are traits of the modern “fittest”. “Selection”, then, is what populations become the largest - which has nothing to do with fittest, ideals, or what’s truly “preferred” yet seemingly out of reach.

I hate things that make people think they can never be more than they are - in any way.

This characterization, from a junk study, basically says society prefers a worse existence. No. Society deserves a much better existence.

Someone needs to tell society that, and then put it back on them if they don’t. Create your path. In America, you can improve via innovation (ideas), hard work, grit, and more.

As always, thanks for reading.

And for the above reasons, the elitist upper crust community underestimates the plebeian hordes. This too shall pass.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

I think both you and they misunderstand evolution terribly. Your post is full of holes and not very academic at all.

Do you think human evolution works collectively or individually? Do you think we have come this far by being selfish and self motivated? I don't. I think it is bringing our end swiftly. Humans evolved collectively. That is why groups always form. We are not lone wolves. Even on the street we form into groups with politics, that is gangs. Even gangs work collectively.

Within the collective there may be a hierarchy and nearly always is. That does not mean inequality, does it? I am happy being where I am and I am happy for Elon to be where he is. He is helping me. Jeff is too. My life is far less stress than their lives are. I have loads of free time, freedom of movement because there is no seurity threat to me, less strain on my health physically, less needs and don't need a super yacht to get my rocks off. I have my sea kayak that I power with my strong arms, getting all that fresh air and cardio vascular benefit instead of a dirty engine pumping crap out everywhere and keeping billionaoire arabs accustomed to their cruel reigns. I have removed the arabs from nearly all the equation in my life with my sea kayak and cycle.

So, tell me who is serving who in all that? They can't tell me what to do. We are in a democracy. I am neither their servant nor their slave.

I have been thinking about evolution for many years. I have spotted it's rise in human consciousness in the mythology of the Romans, in the Holy Bible and of course in Science. I have spotted the beginnings of it in animism which was the beginning of our consciousness as we separated from the apes. I can see evolution in Jesus Christ. I can be a true evolutionist and believe in Christ. I am a Christian scientist. Nothing Jesus said disagress with scientific methodology. The olive press and the grape press are EVOLUTION. They are metaphors for it. The wheat gets separated from the chaff, what is useful and worth developing lives while the mistakes and errors die. The errors go to the lake of fire/ Gehenna, outside the gates. Evolution is busy at that with all that exists in matter every micro second.

Boris Johnson is a similar age to me. If you put pictures of us together you would think I was thirty years younger. I have beautiful long hair, the body of a slim athlete with all the performance to go with it, don't drink, don't smoke, eat nice healthy food, 28 inch waist still, no wrinkles. On that basis who is the fittest?

I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you. Look beyond the obvious. Start thinking laterally about evolution and you will get a better idea of what it really is. I have an enormous amount of info regarding my observations. I hope to share some of that here if I can get on angle on you guys. I don't feel very comfortable with you right now though. There is so much aggression in posts here, so many selfish agendas of destruction, so many lies and orejudices. It's a regular termite infested structure to be honest, just like the West. I don't think it is very fit. Lucky for it the challengers, the other male lions like Xi and Putin are even less fit, luckily indeed...for now!

You belittle the humble. I tell you the meek are inheriting the earth. They are inheriting America right now. They are evolution. Observe them.

a reply to: VulcanWerks
Oh dear, fancy picking the University of East Anglia. Eeerr, that's the one that fudged and lied about their global warming theory.
Now lets' take your list:-
1. low income people are less intelligent etc. Answer, it's called community, family life. A bigger family more than not is a happy family etc. Just because you bring it down to economics does not make it wrong.
2. Population of useless eaters to those that feed them. Answer. That's just basic numbers, ie. 1 farmers feeds many people, been that way since farming began. What you are really alluding to is "why should the well of pay for the not so well off".
3.People with jobs careers have fewer kids. Answer. That's not through natural selection, that's called uber vanity, the me me me culture. Ie. I don't want kids because they'll ruin MY life cycle.
4. Intelligent high wage earners??? Answer. Easy go to answer 3.
5. Go to answer 3.
6. Government assistance etc.. Answer. you're alluding to economics again not natural selection. Think on this. Without the mass of people, working (with their low wages) paying their taxes do you think your meagre tax payment (even if yoy pay thousands) would keep any countries infrastructure running?

Your whole post reeks, not about evolution, but about "get rid of the useless eaters", "leave more room for me" etc. etc.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?



People who make assumptions about things and never doubt or test their assumptions are just opinionated.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Great thread - S & F

When you make the world idiot-proof you get a world full of idiots.

If we gave just one tenth the incentives to be productive that we give people to do nothing our nation would be nothing like what it is now. Unfortunately, that would require taking away the incentives to do nothing and that would be treated as an attack on minorities - even though race plays no part in it. In other words, it will never happen unless the suggestion originates within the minority community itself.

a reply to: crayzeed

Go to answer 3, go to answer 3, go to answer 3.

Here is the problem: answer three is gibberish.

People with higher levels of education typically earn more. Its not vanity, its being paid for something of value, an advanced skill set. You know, capitalism. People with higher incomes and higher levels of education typically understand the cost of raising children, and consider that cost when making the decision to have or not have a large family. It is not vanity, it is conscience. A conscious thought process to determine whether or not, as parents, they can provide the kind of life they wish for their children.

The size of the family has no bearing on the degree of happiness whatsoever. If the parents can provide for two or three children but no more without sacrificing quality for quantity, the more educated among us will typically make the decision to stop at a number of children they can comfortably provide for. Lower intellects - not so much. Have another kid - get a raise from the government.

COVID shots = Darwin award

Why do people always assume the poor have more children just to obtain benefits? Says a lot about the people claiming it.

Sometimes the poor have more children because they have nothing better to do or they do not have the financial means to control reproduction.

originally posted by: Tarantula777

I have been thinking about evolution for many years. I have spotted it's rise in human consciousness in the mythology of the Romans, in the Holy Bible and of course in Science. I have spotted the beginnings of it in animism which was the beginning of our consciousness as we separated from the apes. I can see evolution in Jesus Christ. I can be a true evolutionist and believe in Christ. I am a Christian scientist. Nothing Jesus said disagress with scientific methodology. The olive press and the grape press are EVOLUTION. They are metaphors for it. The wheat gets separated from the chaff, what is useful and worth developing lives while the mistakes and errors die. The errors go to the lake of fire/ Gehenna, outside the gates. Evolution is busy at that with all that exists in matter every micro second.

All evolution really is about is making babies. Those that survive and make babies push evolution, its that simple. Human have long ago took over our evolutionary process away from natural selection, so what drives making babies is no longer who gets eaten before they can reproduce, so now it is more economically based. Poorer people have more kids since they are basically free labor for the family. As people hit Middle Class they have less and less because kids then become more of a cost. EU, Americas, many Asian countries are all negative population growth due to this, but we see in Africa where people are still having 8 kids. We need like 2.3 to keep even, but we are not even doing that in most countries today.

Were things go adrift is when one suggests poor people are low IQ as a rule with zero ambition etc. Hunter Biden anyone??? But one concern people talk about is a society like idiocracy where all the dumb people have out breed the smart ones. Where the problem lies is if two people below an IQ of 90 have children their children will most likely be in the average range as that is where most are and have about the same chance to be below 90 as they would to be above 115.

Now typically well educated parents, or highly skilled parents tend to push those on their kids so the environment they grow up in tends to determine more if they are successful in life or not, not so much evolution. A while back there was a guy who was rated the smartest person on the planet and he was a bouncer at a bar. Had a horrible life of abuse from a drunkard dad. 210 IQ and he was working a minimum wage job.

Another interesting note is 30% of the population has an IQ below 90 and that is a lot of people that could find themselves in a situation where they do not get ahead in life. The difference between someone below 90 and a person lets say 120 is the 120 IQ can lean something new very quickly, maybe in hours where the below 90 may take a month or not at all. lower IQ people tend to learn one skill well and stay with it their who lives as changing is very difficult for them. Higher IQ can jump around a good number of times. In any case if a lower IQ person been doing something for 20 years I bet they are still damn good at it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think people in developed countries have children for free labor, except maybe farm families.

And no one has mentioned the Catholics, who don't practice birth control.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Great thread - S & F

When you make the world idiot-proof you get a world full of idiots.

If we gave just one tenth the incentives to be productive that we give people to do nothing our nation would be nothing like what it is now. Unfortunately, that would require taking away the incentives to do nothing and that would be treated as an attack on minorities - even though race plays no part in it. In other words, it will never happen unless the suggestion originates within the minority community itself.

Nailed it.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: crayzeed

Go to answer 3, go to answer 3, go to answer 3.

Here is the problem: answer three is gibberish.

People with higher levels of education typically earn more. Its not vanity, its being paid for something of value, an advanced skill set. You know, capitalism. People with higher incomes and higher levels of education typically understand the cost of raising children, and consider that cost when making the decision to have or not have a large family. It is not vanity, it is conscience. A conscious thought process to determine whether or not, as parents, they can provide the kind of life they wish for their children.

The size of the family has no bearing on the degree of happiness whatsoever. If the parents can provide for two or three children but no more without sacrificing quality for quantity, the more educated among us will typically make the decision to stop at a number of children they can comfortably provide for. Lower intellects - not so much. Have another kid - get a raise from the government.

This is why I have 3 children - two of which are much older. No more.

My wife and I, due to the decision that balancing our ambitions with our love for our children, arrived at said conclusion.

The three of them get the benefit of our love, time, and resources to a degree that fits my eye.

If I had 6, they would all be equally “meh” in terms of attention and resources.

I don’t want that for them.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: VulcanWerks
Oh dear, fancy picking the University of East Anglia. Eeerr, that's the one that fudged and lied about their global warming theory.
Now lets' take your list:-
1. low income people are less intelligent etc. Answer, it's called community, family life. A bigger family more than not is a happy family etc. Just because you bring it down to economics does not make it wrong.
2. Population of useless eaters to those that feed them. Answer. That's just basic numbers, ie. 1 farmers feeds many people, been that way since farming began. What you are really alluding to is "why should the well of pay for the not so well off".
3.People with jobs careers have fewer kids. Answer. That's not through natural selection, that's called uber vanity, the me me me culture. Ie. I don't want kids because they'll ruin MY life cycle.
4. Intelligent high wage earners??? Answer. Easy go to answer 3.
5. Go to answer 3.
6. Government assistance etc.. Answer. you're alluding to economics again not natural selection. Think on this. Without the mass of people, working (with their low wages) paying their taxes do you think your meagre tax payment (even if yoy pay thousands) would keep any countries infrastructure running?

Your whole post reeks, not about evolution, but about "get rid of the useless eaters", "leave more room for me" etc. etc.

You can tell yourself this all you want.

It’s not how reality plays out.

Vanity? No. It’s security and the ability to craft your own existence.

It’s the ability to turn dreams into reality.

Now, perhaps you have many millions of USD. At which point, you can do what you like - that’s the point of money. If that’s the case, I hope my children get there.

You’re not wrong, however, in regards to things beyond economics. The issue is that economics goes beyond money - and people don’t think of it that way (and I have a minor in Econ, and am the product of an Econ major with an MBA and was taught Econ from an early age, so yes, I can speak on this subject). But, if my kids go on to be wildly more successful than your kids, they’ll have a life that affords them better medical care, quality food, minds filled with knowledge, creativity and all the other things they can explore. Yours won’t.

I am that kid who dug out of the hole. It is possible. And to say what you said, in short, says other things matter. That’s fine, and up to you, but it isn’t vanity. I’ll be happy when I get to being me - whatever that is. And I’ll be happy when my kids do, too, in a way that’s well above average.

Because average sucks - and everyone knows it - but they tell themselves otherwise to feel ok about not either achieving or being taught to have bigger dreams.

You get one round. Go put your name somewhere it won’t be forgotten that extends beyond your family - for even there it will be forgotten in two gens maximum.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Tarantula777

I have been thinking about evolution for many years. I have spotted it's rise in human consciousness in the mythology of the Romans, in the Holy Bible and of course in Science. I have spotted the beginnings of it in animism which was the beginning of our consciousness as we separated from the apes. I can see evolution in Jesus Christ. I can be a true evolutionist and believe in Christ. I am a Christian scientist. Nothing Jesus said disagress with scientific methodology. The olive press and the grape press are EVOLUTION. They are metaphors for it. The wheat gets separated from the chaff, what is useful and worth developing lives while the mistakes and errors die. The errors go to the lake of fire/ Gehenna, outside the gates. Evolution is busy at that with all that exists in matter every micro second.

All evolution really is about is making babies. Those that survive and make babies push evolution, its that simple. Human have long ago took over our evolutionary process away from natural selection, so what drives making babies is no longer who gets eaten before they can reproduce, so now it is more economically based. Poorer people have more kids since they are basically free labor for the family. As people hit Middle Class they have less and less because kids then become more of a cost. EU, Americas, many Asian countries are all negative population growth due to this, but we see in Africa where people are still having 8 kids. We need like 2.3 to keep even, but we are not even doing that in most countries today.

Were things go adrift is when one suggests poor people are low IQ as a rule with zero ambition etc. Hunter Biden anyone??? But one concern people talk about is a society like idiocracy where all the dumb people have out breed the smart ones. Where the problem lies is if two people below an IQ of 90 have children their children will most likely be in the average range as that is where most are and have about the same chance to be below 90 as they would to be above 115.

Now typically well educated parents, or highly skilled parents tend to push those on their kids so the environment they grow up in tends to determine more if they are successful in life or not, not so much evolution. A while back there was a guy who was rated the smartest person on the planet and he was a bouncer at a bar. Had a horrible life of abuse from a drunkard dad. 210 IQ and he was working a minimum wage job.

Another interesting note is 30% of the population has an IQ below 90 and that is a lot of people that could find themselves in a situation where they do not get ahead in life. The difference between someone below 90 and a person lets say 120 is the 120 IQ can lean something new very quickly, maybe in hours where the below 90 may take a month or not at all. lower IQ people tend to learn one skill well and stay with it their who lives as changing is very difficult for them. Higher IQ can jump around a good number of times. In any case if a lower IQ person been doing something for 20 years I bet they are still damn good at it.

You raise a good point regarding Hunter.

If someone is overly privileged they and up being dumber than anyone who had to work for it.

Ironically, that’s on Joe.

I work 55+ hours a week, probably closer to 60 on average, and do well. I’m responsible for many peoples livelihoods. They eat well. But, it’s hard. I come home dead tired from the emotional drain hours of meetings, HR problems, etc. takes on you. Then I try to be dad in the moment.

But why do I do it? So my family can have a life that is void of common worry. If my wife wasnt such a boss and demanded the children be respectful at all times, they’d be brats. Instead, she (and I) squash that # like a bug.

My wife grew up in a trailer park - by birth. She picked herself up and got the F out of a huge family that “loves family” but only perpetuates mental illness, failure, lack of experience, and a small mind. The hard work of our family moved our kids well beyond that.

Joe didn’t do so well with Hunter.

originally posted by: Tarantula777
a reply to: VulcanWerks

I think both you and they misunderstand evolution terribly. Your post is full of holes and not very academic at all.

Do you think human evolution works collectively or individually? Do you think we have come this far by being selfish and self motivated? I don't. I think it is bringing our end swiftly. Humans evolved collectively. That is why groups always form. We are not lone wolves. Even on the street we form into groups with politics, that is gangs. Even gangs work collectively.

Within the collective there may be a hierarchy and nearly always is. That does not mean inequality, does it? I am happy being where I am and I am happy for Elon to be where he is. He is helping me. Jeff is too. My life is far less stress than their lives are. I have loads of free time, freedom of movement because there is no seurity threat to me, less strain on my health physically, less needs and don't need a super yacht to get my rocks off. I have my sea kayak that I power with my strong arms, getting all that fresh air and cardio vascular benefit instead of a dirty engine pumping crap out everywhere and keeping billionaoire arabs accustomed to their cruel reigns. I have removed the arabs from nearly all the equation in my life with my sea kayak and cycle.

So, tell me who is serving who in all that? They can't tell me what to do. We are in a democracy. I am neither their servant nor their slave.

I have been thinking about evolution for many years. I have spotted it's rise in human consciousness in the mythology of the Romans, in the Holy Bible and of course in Science. I have spotted the beginnings of it in animism which was the beginning of our consciousness as we separated from the apes. I can see evolution in Jesus Christ. I can be a true evolutionist and believe in Christ. I am a Christian scientist. Nothing Jesus said disagress with scientific methodology. The olive press and the grape press are EVOLUTION. They are metaphors for it. The wheat gets separated from the chaff, what is useful and worth developing lives while the mistakes and errors die. The errors go to the lake of fire/ Gehenna, outside the gates. Evolution is busy at that with all that exists in matter every micro second.

Boris Johnson is a similar age to me. If you put pictures of us together you would think I was thirty years younger. I have beautiful long hair, the body of a slim athlete with all the performance to go with it, don't drink, don't smoke, eat nice healthy food, 28 inch waist still, no wrinkles. On that basis who is the fittest?

I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you. Look beyond the obvious. Start thinking laterally about evolution and you will get a better idea of what it really is. I have an enormous amount of info regarding my observations. I hope to share some of that here if I can get on angle on you guys. I don't feel very comfortable with you right now though. There is so much aggression in posts here, so many selfish agendas of destruction, so many lies and orejudices. It's a regular termite infested structure to be honest, just like the West. I don't think it is very fit. Lucky for it the challengers, the other male lions like Xi and Putin are even less fit, luckily indeed...for now!

You belittle the humble. I tell you the meek are inheriting the earth. They are inheriting America right now. They are evolution. Observe them.

Your realize that the definition of evolution has changed a lot since Darwin, right?

Your post suggest so.

While I’m glad you’ve found you, truly, the realities of the world will steam roll both of us - and our kids - whether either of us like or not not.

I will contemplate more of your post - and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts - but you need to also consider how the realities of the world in modern evolution may or may not clash with what you’re saying.

It’s why I’ve said forever - the “rural” or “conservative” crowd speaks to me. But, they’re stuck in the past - many humans left them long ago in terms of advancement and understanding. That stagnation of “the way things were” or “the way things should be” is self-imposed lack of perspective.

And they are getting lapped.

Introspection works both ways mate.

originally posted by: VierEyes

I don't think people in developed countries have children for free labor, except maybe farm families.

And no one has mentioned the Catholics, who don't practice birth control.

Unless there is a reason, no, as kids get expensive and people's lifestyles change. I have people who work for me that are not married and have no kids though been together for 15+ years. As far as Catholics go, don't think they are having huge numbers either as populations are in decline in modern countries.

originally posted by: VierEyes
Why do people always assume the poor have more children just to obtain benefits? Says a lot about the people claiming it.

Sometimes the poor have more children because they have nothing better to do or they do not have the financial means to control reproduction.

They don't have the financial means to control reproduction Seriously?
www.plannedparenthood.org...

Of course, there is always abstinence. Cheers

originally posted by: dazbog

They don't have the financial means to control reproduction Seriously?
www.plannedparenthood.org...

Of course, there is always abstinence. Cheers

I always thought it was because they didn't have much money, so they screwed a lot as free entertainment.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: dazbog

They don't have the financial means to control reproduction Seriously?
www.plannedparenthood.org...

Of course, there is always abstinence. Cheers

I always thought it was because they didn't have much money, so they screwed a lot as free entertainment.

It's free? 😂