What is scientific reason in nature for creating ugly males?

What is scientific reason in nature for creating ugly males?

One would think that nature could figure out after severa lkk years that ugly males are unwanted, yet somehow new ugly males are created.

Is nature dumb? If nature can not handle male creating then why do you expect to handle methane created by cow farts?

Natural Selection is like the Free Market.

It's the dumbest, least efficient, "constantly bumping into dead-ends and falling off cliffs" way of making progress.

There is no reason for ugly males. It's just that the process of natural selection is just trial and error and it has really no awareness of how fucking retarded some "trials" are.

Some things about attrctiveness are evolutionary, nobody wants their potential children to be constantly sickly or have genetic diseases, but others are entirely socially derived. Being fat used to be a sign of affluence, shit like that. So evolution isn't going to progress towards the most attractive human being becuse what that is changes from generation to generation.

Also its just good to keep around a wide variety of phenotypes.

Why the fuck would looks matter more than shit like athleticism or intellect? Youre whats dumb kid.

Centuries of arranged marriages ultimately led to a catastrophic dysgenic effect.

But being fat is a choice

lol you're a retard and you don't even know it. Looks definitely matter to an extent. Not saying everyone should look like brad Pitt but if the kid in op's picture came for a job interview you think anyone would actually hire him?

>Why the fuck would looks matter more than shit like athleticism or intellect?
Looks are (partly?) health indicators
Perhaps, but this is speculative, looks were much more important in the past but we kept that programming

Is this a 'cow farts don't cause climate change' thread in disguise? Because I'm pretty sure it's a 'cow farts don't cause climate change' thread in disguise.

I'm an Earth Scientist and you're right. Cows do not cause climate change. I tried making a low quality piece of art here to explain.

Carbon doesn't come from space. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by plants and becomes sugars that are eaten by the cow which turns some of that carbon into methane which it then farts out that returns to the atmosphere where it breaks down in a couple of years to become carbon dioxide again and restarts the cycle.

It's a 0 sum game. Stop listening to PETA. Cows do not cause climate change. Digging up tens of millions of year old rocks from the ground where it's been locked away and burning it adds carbon to the cycle which wasn't there before. THAT causes climate change.

I'm still trying to figure out why white people evolved
> Started with UV protection
> Lived in harmony with nature
> Nah, fuck that.
> Let's instead build in massive inferiority complex
> Creates a subspecies that spreads disease, genocide, slavery, war and death around the globe
> Ruins environment to point of nonsustainabiliy
> Elects a masochistic Cheeto leader
> Keeps enough nuclear weapons to finish the race because, fuck it, why not
> All to glorify some imaginary sky father who is also, by the way, coicidently white
Makes sense to me.

If a property has a continuous spread in the population, some people are bound to be in the lower end.

We were all ugly back in the hunter gatherer days you retards, no one gets to be beautiful in that environment

>selective pressures drive the population towards a mean value of a trait
so most people are average, and then some are below average, and some are above average
>selective pressure can be stronger on some traits than others
maybe being smart or successful or strong is more important than just looks ever think of that?
>at the same time this trait can be plastic in one direction or the other under various environmental circumstances
your can smoke while pregnant, you didn't eat your veggies, low test, whatever might make you ugly
>those traits that may or may not be expressed by one individual may manifest in their children i.e, men who inherit balding from their mothers
>some traits are pleiotropic, and one gene that controls for a desirable trait can be also in control of a less disirable trait ina sort of tradeoff
maybe to get a huge brain/huge dick/high test you gotta be ugly I dunno

either way user, there are lots of ways people could have evolved to be ugly. naturals selection is meant to take care of it so that if one phenotype were truly super undesirable or terrible, they wouldn't be able to exist at all. clearly, some of these ugly people with ugly genes are getting laid in some way, so they can't be totally worthless. they are meant to be here

All other things being equal, I would hire the ugly guy in a heartbeat. Ugly guys work harder because they haven't won the genetic lottery. He's at work to work, not to flirt with the latest throwaway blonde bimbo HR said I had to hire.

Let the pretty boys be salesmen. When shit's gotta get done on time, give me an ugly motherfucker any day.

so is being ugly a lot of the time desu

like pretty much anyone can be decent looking if they shower on the reg and get an okay haircut

u know attractiveness is also correlated with intelligence right

humans kindof go against the natural selection system because people with less desirable traits usually end up settling for someone else with undesirable traits, and since most people only have one long-term partner at a time people with desirable and undesirable traits all tend to have the same number of kids

>Earth scientist doesn't understand the chemistry of climate change

Typical.

Cows can still contribute to climate change without creating a net change in atmospheric carbon levels. Some of the cow's carbon intake is released as methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas, and isn't brought back into the carbon cycle by plants.

A N E C D O T A L
E V I D E N C E

Shove it up your ass. There been more genocides in China than China's got rice.

>Being fat used to be a sign of affluence

Generally, people are still more attracted to fatter people whenever they're hungry. That's always been the case, and the people's general rate of hunger is what's changed since those times. The example you give illustrates that attraction is NOT a societal construct, but it also illustrates that it's not entirely biological determinism, either. It's the interaction between the two that determines general perceptions of attractiveness.

Comment

wity coment

meta referential sarcastic comment

Because ugly female makes ugly males and ugly female still reproduce.

If everyone is too attractive humans will breed like rabbits and eventually exceed the carrying capacity of our ecosystem.

Some people just need to be ugly to ensure our species doesn't go extinct. You may not have won the genetic lotto but your role is important nonetheless.

Nature doesn't "attempt" to make ugly males. It is just that the genetic code to create the male is of that nature. And that is largely due to the luck and lifestyle decisions and environment of the parents of the male.

Also ugliness is subject and relative to society and culture. People that are born truly ugly is in most part the fault of the parents awful drug habits/diet/lifestyle.

You're making a very good point about the cow's breath not contributing to climate change. I see a lot of people arguing this and it makes me want to pull my hair out.

But you must be some kind of fucking retard to think that plants absorb methane. It's not zero sum, the methane from cow's stomachs build up in the atmosphere and methane is roughly 30 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Further more animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, leaving the carbon that those trees were supposed to absorb still hanging in the air in excess. Not only that, but it puts an unneeded 10x multiple of stress on our resources to farm plants, then feed those plants to cows their entire life, then eat the cows rather than just eating the plants to begin with.

Beyond that, there is just no reason to eat meat. Because you like the taste? No, you can get the same exact taste from plant substitutes. Because you need meat to live? Nope, meat is not required to survive or even to be healthy, in fact vegetarians are statistically more healthy than meat eaters.

There are many annoying, pretentious vegans out there. I hate those guys, too. You can still be a vegetarian/vegan and hate the pretentious holier-than-thou vegs.

Well first of all why is the one on the right considered more attractive? I guess being straight makes my opinion worthless but when I see someone with like a really big jaw I'm like wtf is wrong with that guy.

But I guess if I were a girl that would be a good thing? Like at least I'm looking at the guy?

Also women only like 'alpha' dudes when they're in heat. They actually like the more babyface types the rest of the month.

I think it's all not worth pondering as women are psycho. The one on the right definitely says I'm going to fucking murder you a bit more and women like that sort of thing. It seems to be a double edged sword. He'll protect you from everyone else but who will protect you from him?

Also women are like chimps in that they try to always have two guys around. A breeder and a provider. The provider goes off to collect food and that's when the breeder shows up. But they still have to have sex with the provider occasionally as if they don't the provider will nope out so it's bound to be that the provider will occasionally get her knocked up.

Physical attractiveness is only way to prove "usefulness".
Attractive usually promotes the idea of having a good immune system and good physical symmetry.

However other traits, such as intelligence, loyalty and honesty are also valuable for survival.

If one's only survival trait is "mate with me because I look symmetrical and disease free", then you unfortunately got the short leash.
Attractive individuals survive short term since attractiveness fades in the majority of populations.
The group will look to *contributions* for justifying caring about (and therefore not neglecting, excluding, blaming, etc) individuals when they reach leadership age.

He is more symmetrical and his appearance in general is that of someone healthy, both of these things are caused by good genetics so these traits are found as attractive

Right and in communism when the state runs the entire economy and controls all resources and has to divide them among different projects there is no way of knowing where resources should go in the most efficient manner because people have no choice, there are no real prices because there are no markets for people to haggle in and determine the price of something.

In a free market resources are more efficiently do to competition choice exists and people can choose which company allocates resources better, resources are allocated to where profits are highest because that is what is giving people the most value as they're choosing to pay for it.

because there are two mating strategies long term and short term and people are born for on or the other.

Found the cuck