>80% of females reproduce but only 40% of males
So if there's a greater selective pressure on males, isn't it only natural for men to be superior to women.
Consider the Following
Samuel Price
Other urls found in this thread:
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com
en.wikipedia.org
nzherald.co.nz
twitter.com
James Carter
No. The smarter one is, the less likely they are to reproduce, specially of they are men. So, of anything, the number of superior men should be dropping.
I hope I don't have to explain to you why intelligence = superiority
Michael Cox
This happened for a period about 8000 years ago. No one knows why.
Mason Walker
>The smarter one is, the less likely they are to reproduce
>intelligence = superiority
One's intelligence doesn't mean shit if they lack the social acuity to successfully pass on their own genes. In the world of biology, the one who produces the most amount of successfully viable offspring (that can then reproduce themselves) reins supreme.
Adam Bell
>I hope I don't have to explain to you why intelligence = superiority
It's impossible to explain this to a brainlet. They'll never understand.
Jacob Gutierrez
>muh dick
We evolved to be more than monkeys. At least some of (you excluded) have higher ambitions than simply putting their benis in stinking hole.
Jaxon Bell
I'm not talking about evolutionary superiority, but about actual superiority. Humans wouldn't be able to do the shit they done if they were all only social.
If you don't consider people like Tesla or Lovecraft superior to the average joe and use their lack of children as an argument you are utterly retarded.
Also, being intelligent doesn't mean being a sperglord. Most intelligeny people that don't reproduce choose to do so rather than are unable to find a partner.
Luke Wright
>tesla meme
Brody Ross
>the smarter one is the less likely they are to reproduce
(Citation needed)
Lincoln Flores
You can do both you know. High ambitions =/= no sex. I'm sorry your ambitions don't include women and you're resentful of that.
Christopher Lopez
(Citation needed)
(Context needed)
Hudson Taylor
It sounds like you're experiencing quite a bit of cognitive dissonance there bud. God forbid I taint your ego by alluding to the notion that the only major evolutionary difference between you and an ape is that an ape lacks the capacity to put itself through the mental gymnastics required to convince itself that it's a special snowflake, that has ambitions beyond that of the preservation of one's self and kin.
Leo Powell
Elijah Reed
You do realize that men and women don not evolve independently?
William Nelson
>Most intelligeny people that don't reproduce choose to do so rather than are unable to find a partner.
In other words, they're actually stupid.
Justin Turner
Having children is only a smart move in a collective level. On individual level, having children is a pretty stupid decision. Raising a person is expensive and exhausting. When you do that you are giving up on your own comfort and pleasure.
Michael Scott
A smart realizes that "individual level" isn't a thing. A smart person doesn't have the delusion of life being an arcade game to rack up as many pleasure points as possible.
Daniel Foster
>A smart person doesn't have the delusion of life being an arcade game to rack up as many pleasure points as possible.
Why would that be a delusion? A smart person can quickly realize that life is meaningless, therefore one should pursue pleasure without hurting others.
Luke Lee
>life is meaningless, therefore the meaning of life is pursuing pleasure
Do you even think before you type this shit out?
Angel Bailey
Lovecraft was arguably inferior to the average Joe in 90% of the things that really count when it comes to being a self-actualized, wise, and happy human being. He hated new things and getting out of his comfort zone to the point where he lived as a hermit and was obsessed with hating non-whites. He probably wanted to have sex and a romantic connection, but barely pursued this goal after his marriage blew up on the launchpad out of fear. His xenophobic tendencies prevented him from experiencing and enjoying the world in a way that would have made him happy, and probably held back his art as well.
As an author, he was good but not great. He had a tendency to use too many adjectives in an ineffective way, and while his ideas were good his ability to implement them was hit or miss. His failed attempts at poetry show he simply lacked the gifts and dedication of other writers such as Poe.
I'm not trying to cast moral judgment on Lovecraft, but rather point out that he wasted a lot of time sabotaging himself.
Evan Stewart
>No one knows why
See you graduated with a women's studies major.
Ethan Anderson
You can raise your child to be an asset, the only reason most peoples kids are fucking useless is because they pawn them off on the state to be educated. The state is not educating anybody it is sifting through the population to find the people who will run its mechanisms for it. Anyone with a little intelligence and some basic computer know how can program their kid to be more capable than they are and a solid earner by 18. Think of how much worthless information you encountered in public school that you don't even think about anymore.
This is an extreme example but you could get the books and the videos for making high grade E, and train a 14 year old on doing just that one task safely and efficiently. He would learn how to read, write, lab technique, some basic chemistry, and math, and apply all skills practically. If you can get rid of the product your kids making you could also rake in a decent fortune, by the time he's 18 he could have a pretty penny saved up, a practical knowledge of chemistry, mathematics, english, and functional business skills.
Ethan Taylor
makes perfect sense op
Aaron Walker
What else should you look for instead of pleasure, given the meaningless of life?
>Lovecraft was a prodigy, reciting poetry at the age of three and writing complete poems by six.
Also, you can't really say that his idea of having an unknown and unfathomable evil for humans wasn't at least brilliant.
Ryan Russell
meaninglessness*