Modern sexual selection is making humans better

All this makes me very sad because I'm not a chad.

Since the sexual revolution, girls have had the freedom to only reproduce with chads.
By chads I mean sexually attractive, smart and relatively wealthy men. Even if women are in a relationship with losers, and by losers I mean the bottom 80% of men, there are high chances that children are still produced from the seed of chads due to cuckoldry.
I suppose old civilizations that enforced monogamy had halted human improvement because everyone got to reproduce even if they weren't worth anything.
Now that we are back on track, does it mean the human race is improving in general because only the best seed is being used to impregnate women?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Absolutely. Sexual liberation was the greatest thing to happen to humankind since agriculture.

I would argue Arab countries are worse since the men can have up to 4 wives.

arabs also marry their cousins like the pakis.
Pakis in the UK don't have 4 wives but their IQ is still lower than the Indians that they are otherwise very genetically similar to.
It's safe to say cousin marriage is the problem there and that's a different issue.

>making humanity better
fertility trends are dysgenic, especially among liberals, where IQ and education are negatively correlated with children sired. among conservatives there's a slight bias towards intelligence, but dumb conservatives still breed more than smart ones, and conservative whites are a minority of the population anyways. in the future, we may be stronger or bigger, but we certainly won't be smarter.

But money is related to intelligence isn't it?
Women are also going for the money

You may be looking at students in your vicinity and draw that conclusion.
Fact of the matter is that most of the population is working class "bimbos" that live in a fairly brainless routine and the intelligence boost is low. Any health boost are counteracted by the continuous change of technology. What smartphones does to the necks of children alone is much more severe than any fucking natural selection of more broad shouldered guys.

>But money is related to intelligence isn't it?
40 years ago yes, now not so much.

OPs argument is pretty much refuted by the first 3 minutes of idiocracy.

youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0

Idiocracy only movie radical right love by left people.

>intelligence boost
There is a certain threshold for intelligence, beyond which it becomes a liability, and it takes a society supportive of it to allow it to survive. Neither natural selection nor sexual selection will ever select for genius.

>Since the sexual revolution
>old civilizations that enforced monogamy
Fucking do your research before you put up a thesis.

>smart
ha!

Filtered.

>implying dumb 100IQ brainlets know what is better for the species

Very few Chads have actually worthwhile genes.

Having a nice smile and heights means jack shit.

Only rich men get 4 wives. Actually most men are just robots who get nothing. That's why they fight all the time. It's a convenient way to get rid of the horny young men.

this. OP is a faggot

Where do you people live that pretty/dumb, ugly/smart trope exists?
People who have sex daily get into medicine here while Smart But Lazy™ people can only get into cs or engineering.

Yeah, but most often than not the monied non-attractive guys still get to choose last.

Also it drives me crazy seeing all my very intelligent friends dating/marrying dumb girls because they couldn't get anyone better while the smart girls go for dumb guys who look good.

How do I become a 7 lads?

>Where do you people live that pretty/dumb, ugly/smart trope exists?

I know your post is bait but at my university situated in Aryan territory, there are a lot of non-Aryan foreign graduate students with very dry dicks.

When it comes to looks vs smarts girls always go for looks. Smarts are always secondary.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation between intelligence and looks but that only applies within one given ethnic group and when controlling for all other factors.

I got banned for making the same post last week.

But you mentioned "sexual selection" so the brainlet janitor might actually think this isn't exactly the same post that he removed a week ago.

How can it be possible that there are more females than males reproducing to such a large scale, it surely isn't as much as in your picture, also isn't intelligence related to looks especially in girls?

I never thought I'd see someone say that I've been thinking.