The Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply To Modern Human Beings

I know your blood is already boiling from reading the headline above and that your intellectual self-defense mechanisms have been activated to refute all ideas you are about to encounter henceforth, but make yourself a cup of tea, relax, and consider the following viewpoint that has been concealed from you during your entire life.

Since high school I have believed in the theory of evolution, a logical and elegant solution over religious explanations in describing how life originated and evolved on earth. For the next 15 years, including four years studying microbiology in university, I never once doubted the theory, and have even infused the “survive and reproduce” paradigm into the theories and ideas I have shared on my blog and in my books. This paradigm is also a domineering belief in the “red pill” platform.

In the past year a thought entered my brain that I had trouble addressing: why have I yet to reproduce? I’m nearly 36 years old, with ample resources, intellect, health, biological “strength”, and access to females, but I have not yet produced a child. It’s not that I’m ejaculating inside women but failing to impregnate them, but I’m consciously and deliberately halting insemination for reasons that Darwin and his followers have not addressed, such as bad marriage laws and wanting to be free without obligations.

I’ve had more fertile sexual partners than some kings and nobles of old, but have not reproduced once, meaning that game, in the way I have practiced and taught it, has gone squarely against evolution. In other words, remaining a virgin to this day as opposed to embarking on a multi-year world sex tour with triple-digit partners would not at all have changed the childless result I face in this very moment.

Anti-evolutionary behaviors should have been weeded out of the gene pool according to the idea of natural selection, but the more I looked around, the more I saw nothing but my own behavior, of people who were actually frightened to death about being a parent even though they were healthy and could afford to raise children. In fact, the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction.

Western people are structuring their lives in deliberate ways to not reproduce at all and where their cherished hedonistic lifestyles would be greatly harmed if children entered the picture, and while it’s easy to use evolutionary theory in describing which man a woman chooses to have sex with, how can that possibly be correct if the man used condoms or the woman used birth control? Darwin’s theory refers to reproduction, not recreational sex and definitely not a prolonged period of sterile sport fucking, which has no benefit to the genes of the “athlete.” Having an explanation for why a girl on birth control went home with the “alpha male” after meeting him in the club has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, since they both knew that no child would result and used the full force of their consciousness to prevent the creation of life. If reproduction was the purposefully blocked intent, evolution was not present during the sex event.

How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings? How could he explain that the richest peoples of the world with no lack in resources, intellect, and functioning reproductive systems were consciously going against what evolution prescribed for them?

The one aspect of evolution, specifically, that does not hold true for modern humans, especially those living in the West, is that fit humans are reproducing up to the limit of the food supply, as stated by Darwin. In fact, the more resources a person has, the less likely they will reproduce at all, which you can witness at any time in a drive through the poor and rich parts of your city. Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain why this occurs, why the “strongest” and most “fit” are having the least amount of offspring or deliberately choosing not to have any offspring at all, even though natural selection specifically states that only the strongest can pass on their genes while the weak and infirm will not.

Most animals, plants, and bacteria do reproduce up to the limit of the food supply, or at least try to maximally have as many offspring as possible, but human beings have developed a consciousness that enables them to purposefully not reproduce even if they are able, and even develop a phobia to reproduction, and this has been in effect for at least 100 years in all major Western nations that currently suffer a death rate greater than the reproductive rate.

We must therefore conclude, with logic and rationale, that evolution is so flawed at explaining modern human reproductive behavior (and not merely casual sex where reproduction was never the intent), that evolution is not an observable or correct principle for human beings living in Westernized nations. We must discard evolutionary theory as applying to all humans through the mechanism of natural selection and begin a search for a new explanation that explains our current biological behavior.

Evolution may have been the correct theory for a window of human existence, but that window has now closed and theories for post-evolutionary man, one in which there is no struggle for survival and where the strongest of the species are not reproducing, must be devised.

Even if we were to concede that we got here through the process of evolution from a primordial soup, and that our brains are the result of it, these brains are now in a modern environment which has tripwired, hijacked, or corrupted any applicable evolutionary program. We have become one with the plugged-in cosmopolitan borg, and that regardless of the process that caused us to come about, that process is no longer in effect and a new process, yet to be described or understood, is manifesting itself throughout humanity and shattering Darwin’s “survive and reproduce” model.

It’s unlikely that, after reading what I have stated so far, a Darwinist would seriously doubt his faith in evolution. His mind is already racing for the rationalizations that allow evolution to remain true for him, and it’s this race that allows evolution to frame all biological explanations through Darwin’s brain. People are so invested in a theory that tells them what the end point is (i.e. everything we do is to survive and reproduce), that many hardcore atheists are no different from religious fundamentalists in the mental gymnastics they take every day to keep their faith alive.

A book that pokes numerous holes to the evolutionary boat is Darwinian Fairytales by Australian philosopher David Stove. While not a scientist by trade, Stove provides over a dozen non-religious arguments against evolution that were not presented to us during our scientific education in school. After reading through this book carefully, I have determined that evolutionary theory is no longer useful in describing the modern day behavior of human beings. Based on my scientific background, this did take great upheaval to my belief system, but there are too many doubts to the theory, mostly based from my own observation of human behavior, that I can’t believe such a flawed model any longer.

Evolution is not applying to modern humans

From Darwinian Fairytales:

If Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

[…]

That theory is a universal generalization about all terrestrial species at any time. Hence, if the theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another), then it is not true—-finish… If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, no species can ever escape from the process of natural selection.

If you look outside your window, you’ll see that there is no longer a vicious fight for survival, even in desperately poor nations. The sick and handicap, thanks to society’s intervention (a society created by the human animal that evolution supposedly applies to), can survive with ease, and even the mentally inferior who lives on the altruism of others can reproduce to their biological limit assuming they possess basic fertility.

Darwin must have gone wrong somewhere about man, and badly wrong. For if his theory or explanation of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constantly recurring struggle for life: a competition to survive and reproduce which is so severe that few of the competitors in any generation can win. But this prediction of the theory is not borne out by experience in the case of man. In no human society, whether savage or civilized, is there any such struggle for life.

[…]

You can try reminding the Darwinian, if you like, that this theory of evolution is a proposition about all species of organisms, at all times and places; and that man is a species, that the last three centuries are times, and that advanced countries are places.

Darwinists will say that welfare, employment benefits, and even health care disturb natural selection and, if removed, we will see more of the evolutionary model of the strongest reproducing along with the fight for survival. This “veneer” idea is debunked below, but even if you were to take it as valid, multiple societies that contain billion of people currently have welfare, employment benefits, and health care, all developed from the will and efforts of the human animal, naturally and progressively. In other words, to make evolution true, we’d have to manually and artificially intervene and remove all the altruistic fruits and layers of our society that have independently come forth in all corners of the planet. Can you imagine a physicist insisting on blowing up an errant planet that doesn’t obey the laws of gravity to make sure his theories remain universally true?

The reproductive urge to make babies is barely an urge

Your reproductive urge is so strong and so intense that you are wearing condoms, not ejaculating inside women to give them your seed, having panic attacks when a girl announces her period is late, and in the case of some men, dropping out from sex entirely for the evolutionary trivial reasons that women have unreasonable standards and bad attitudes.

A common argument by someone not fulfilling their evolutionary need is that they possess a lack of “resources,” but this can be laughed upon its face with a visit to an African village or South American slum where children living on a dollar a day make it to reproductive age and later go on to reproduce heartily themselves. In fact, the more you raise your children in impoverishment, the more likely they will have more kids and spread your genes than if you raised them in comfort and luxury. The “resources” argument is outright absurd if uttered in the West where the state will raise the kid for you and allow it to reach reproductive age without you spending a dollar.

Consider that I can have 100 children in Washington DC right now and all 100 will be properly clothed, fed, and cared for without me lifting a finger. None would die from neglect before reaching adulthood. Quick—go forth young man and place your seed within every woman you have sex with! Then escape the country and watch from afar as your seeds grow. I promise you the state will raise those seeds and that your genes will be passed on for the next hundred generations, and you will have done as much to live out your evolutionary destiny as the great Mongol kings. Isn’t that why you are here for?

But of course you will do no such thing, because there is only a trivial drive in you to reproduce, and if you fail to do it during your lifetime, you would not even shed a tear, and may actually be happier because of it. Based on Darwin’s theory, we should be jumping at the chance to use the altruism of others or the state to maximally reproduce, even if it still comes at detriment to ourselves, but we’re not, showing how absurd and false the “survive and reproduce” paradigm really is.

Human life is full of opportunities for reproduction which the supply of food would permit, but which are not taken in fact.

[…]

…our species practices, or has practiced, on an enormous scale, infanticide, artificial abortion, and the prevention of conception. No other species does anything at all of this kind, but we do, and we appear to have done so always.

[…]

…women are hardly ever permitted to marry as soon as they are capable of reproduction. The result is, of course, that years of reproductive opportunities are very commonly neglected, however plentiful food may be.

Darwin also didn’t mention why the reproductive urge decreases when humans move from rural areas to cities. How can it be that bars, movie theaters, cafes, yoga studios, and sushi restaurants can diminish, delay, or outright halt a human being’s need to reproduce? Why do humans dedicate their lives—often during their most fertile years—to professions and careers and shallow social experiences in dense cities that hurt their ability to reproduce? It turns out that humans have this weird tendency, as civilization marches on, to develop specializations, activities, and gadgets that self-limit their reproduction or that of others, while at the same time becoming more energized at making money, accumulating possessions, having fun, and raising cute dogs and cats than having the maximum number of children they’re able to.

Humans do not reproduce up to the limit of the food supply

The Malthus-Darwin proposition, then, that population increases if food does, may be a truth, or a false but fertile near-truth, when it is applied to species other than Homo sapiens. But applied to our species, the best it can be is the following pure triviality: that population increases if food does, unless it is prevented from doing so by one or more of a dozen different causes that we know of, or by one or more of an indefinite number of causes that we do not know of.

[…]

The offspring of a most privileged class exhibit, in fact, more strongly than those of any other class, and far more strongly than the offspring of the poor, a proclivity towards a whole range of things, every one of which is more or less unfavorable to parenthood. To early sexual exhaustion, to sexual incapacity, to sexual indifference, to homosexuality, to religion, to study, to art, to connoisseurship, to gambling, to drunkenness, to drugs . . . To almost anything in the world, in fact, except increasing or even maintaining the numbers of their own class by reproduction.

It’s important to reiterate that Stove doesn’t disprove evolution, and leaves aside the fact that the theory can fit quite well for other organisms, but he gives too many examples to count on how evolution is not correct for explaining human reproduction and behavior. To find the greatest paradox to evolution, all you need is a mirror, since your own life goes against it, as does mine.

Here, for example, is a respected sociobiologist, Professor R. D. Alexander, writing in 1979: “. . . we are programed to use all our effort, and in fact to use our lives, in reproduction.” People who use all their effort, in fact use their lives, in reproduction: does that sound like anyone you know, or ever heard or read of?

[…]

It means that an impediment, however microscopic, to an organism’s maximal reproduction, if such an impediment ever occurred at all, would be completely eliminated by natural selection, and as quickly as such elimination can take place.

I know dozens of men personally who have had sex with over 100 women, but I do not know one who engages in purposeful reproduction, even though they are so easily able to. We are all “errors” of evolution, along with billions of other human beings.

Evolution requires high child mortality that is absent in humans

For the “strongest” to survive, the weak must continually die. Darwin suggested levels that can be interpreted as over 50%. But in human beings, nearly everyone survives, even the weakest, meaning that natural selection is no longer selecting for the strong, thanks in part to medical advances. If natural selection is not selecting, and not ensuring that only the strong pass on their genes, evolution is not occurring in humans.

…there will be in every species a severe struggle for life among conspecifics, and a high child mortality. And that is the very thing, of course, which is needed to ensure in turn that in every species there will be that natural selection which is, according to the Darwinian theory, the vera causa of evolution.

[…]

…[evolution] implies a struggle for life among humans which is far more severe, and a child mortality which is far higher, than any which really exists, or indeed could exist, consistently with our species surviving at all.

There is no “struggle for life”

If a man today really did believe we were engaged in a “struggle for life,” competing viciously for food and survival every moment of the day, he would be labeled mentally insane and instituted. Only in cases of starvation is any struggle seen, and yet even then humans will still act rationally and altruistically in times of crises, even to non-relatives, as you have seen in the news after natural disasters rip through tight-knit communities.

Considering that no modern Western citizen has seen starvation, or likely ever will, they’ll luckily escape Darwin’s all-encompassing theory for their entire lives. So while food is plentiful, and there is no struggle for life, what biological theory of life are we following? What is determining the progress of the species? It surely isn’t evolution by natural selection. A program of “everyone lives” and “everyone can reproduce if they want” is not what any Darwinist has proposed.

As for that “struggle for life” among conspecifics, supposedly universal and constant, which Darwin was later to make famous, he saw nothing of it among the Yahgans [indians]. Well, that should go without saying: there was none of it there. Collecting shellfish, their commonest form of food-getting, was done by family groups, or by individuals. In winter, when the guanaco, with a good layer of fat on them, were forced downhill by the deepening snow above, a group of men would go off for a few days to hunt them. Whatever they got was simply shared among the hunters, who carried home as much as they could to share with their families. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Only someone who had “the struggle for life” on the brain would expect anything different.

[…]

…what would it be like, to meet a population of humans who really were always engaged in a Darwinian struggle for life? I cannot say. The best I can summon up is a very indistinct picture of a number of people in a sort of pandemonium competition for food. In my picture, the people are not distinguishable from one another by age, by sex, by rank, or by anything.

[…]

…if, on the other hand, your faith in Darwinism is so profound that you simply must have human beings, not only in the remote past but now too, always engaged in a struggle for life so severe that it leaves no room for altruism and exacts a child mortality of 8o percent or more: well, if you have made that uncomfortable bed, you will just have to lie in it. And one of its minor discomforts is this: that you will have to reconcile yourself to performing, all your life, that evasive trick of which Hume rightly complained. That is, of calling certain facts—namely the facts of human altruism—a “problem” or a “difficulty” for your theory, when anyone not utterly blinded by Darwinism can see that these facts are actually a demonstration of the falsity of your theory.

Altruism is an innate human trait

When evolutionists discuss altruism, they attempt to paint it as a “mistake” of evolution or strain mightily to somehow make it fit their theory, instead of just admitting that their theory is wrong. Altruism is indeed a pathological trait in humans, who are far from “selfish” beings constantly working in their self interests. Every single day you have a need to share, teach, help, and communicate, and not only to your relatives but also strangers, and the benefits you receive from this altruism doesn’t at all increase your ability to reproduce. In fact, I believe the need to have children is not only to pass on your genes, but to have ready-made targets to receive your overflowing and debilitating altruism.

Stove remarks how a human being or group spontaneously showing altruism would and should have been crushed by existing non-altruistic human groups. Since that did not happen, it suggests that altruism was likely with us from the first man.

…how, in a constant competition among conspecifics to survive and reproduce, altruistic individuals could possibly avoid being demographically “swamped” by non-altruistic ones.

[…]

There is no reason whatever, apart from the Darwinian theory of evolution, to believe that there ever was in our species an “evolution of altruism” out of a selfish “state of nature.” People believe there was, only because they accept Darwin’s theory, which says that there is always a struggle for life among conspecifics, whereas there is no such struggle observable among us now, but a great deal of observable altruism instead. The right conclusion to draw, of course, is that Darwin’s theory is false.

[…]

For Darwinian theory says that there is always a struggle for life going on among the members of every species. So why was not every tender shoot of altruism or morality always promptly sheared off by natural selection?

If you on an impulse make an altruistic “offer” to some of your non-altruistic conspecifics, they will—if words mean anything—close with your offer, and thereby improve their own chances of surviving and reproducing; but not yours. If you make a habit of this kind of thing, there is only one way matters can end for you, and for any offspring you may manage to leave who inherit your amiable disposition. Your lineage, far from becoming one of “the favored races in the struggle for life,” will quickly be extinguished.

If for over 100 years you incessantly teach people they have a selfish nature and act only in their best interests, you are surely enabling selfish behavior in humans, and yet in spite of this continuous brainwashing, altruism is still hugely present in all societies. If I had the ability, for over 100 years, through the media and academia, to state that mushrooms are the most vile food imaginable, I have no doubt that per capita consumption of mushrooms would decline.

The human need to communicate

Humans have an innate need for communication, for communication’s sake, among other needs that don’t improve their survival or reproduction.

…it is perfectly obvious that people do not now communicate, or communicate as much as they do, because of any advantage which accrues to themselves from communicating. Indeed, there are few human experiences more common than that of people finding that they have injured their own interests, by too great a readiness to communicate, or too great a receptivity to the communications of others. Yet lessons of this kind are constantly thrown away on us, simply because our love of communication is so strong, and so little controlled by a regard for our own interests.

[…]

…it can perfectly well happen, and often does happen, that a man pursues one or more of these “particular passions” without regard to his own interests; indeed, to the manifest injury of those interests, and even to the destruction of his wealth, health, or life itself. The man who, in defense of his good name, challenges another to a duel and is killed, is an old stock example; but still a good example nonetheless.

The myth that human communication is selfish and deceptive

Another often-heard quote is that humans constantly manipulate and lie to achieve their ends, but such tactics can only work against a backdrop of honesty and truth telling, since lying is a parasitic behavior that needs the “clean” behavior to be effective. Therefore being honest is the original human state, while lying is the parasitic and more rare form of communication.

…it is not hard to see what the result would be, if in the future such manipulative communication were to become universal, or even nearly so. Communication, whether manipulative or otherwise, would then just die out altogether, for the simple reason that no hearer would ever know what any speaker meant by the words he uttered.

[…]

…human intelligence and consciousness plainly have a degree of autonomy which is wildly inconsistent with Darwinism. If intelligence and consciousness in humans are always subordinated, like all other adaptations of organisms, to their striving to increase, then The Origin of Species was an attempt by Darwin to increase the number of his descendants. But it was not.

[…]

Yet if what The Selfish Gene says is true, what else can that book be, but manipulation of its readers by the genes of Richard Dawkins, striving for their own maximal replication?

If “all” communication was deceptive, you would be confused as to what you’re even reading right now, and take an agonizing amount of time to process a single sentence.

The veneer idea is false

This idea, that civilization, morality, unselfishness and self-restraint, are only superficial and misleading appearances, disguising our selfish, savage, animal nature, I will call for short “the veneer idea.”

[…]

…if you intend to stick to the Darwinian theory, you simply have to say that, in the human case, most of the time, the struggle for life is going on below the surface of society: concealed by the veneer of unselfishness, considerateness, and so forth.

[…]

Darwinism and Freudianism are only variations on a common theme, and what that theme is. It is that such things as self-restraint, cooperation, and consideration for others are merely part of a thin disguise which society places over our selfish and non-moral animal nature.

[…]

Despite the widespread and longstanding acceptance that the veneer idea has enjoyed, and still enjoys, it is false, and even obviously false. For it compels us to ask a certain simple question, and yet cannot answer it: namely, whence the veneer? What could have brought such a thing into existence in the first place, or kept it in place if it had once come into existence?

[…]

If the members of every species are always engaged in a struggle for life with one another, and if human beings were selfish and non-moral animals at first, how could even the least little bit of morality or of altruism have escaped being eliminated by natural selection?

If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.

The myth of the evolutionary “savage”

“Cavemen” had rigid social and community roles, and weren’t allowed to do anything they pleased. A study of even modern tribes that exist today show they were more limited in their behavior in some ways than we are.

“Savages,” by contrast, have their behavior rigorously prescribed for them, at almost every moment of life, by gods or ancestors or elders or priests or chiefs, or at any rate by some external authority. And the more “savage” a tribe is, the more comprehensive and vice-like is the grip of social prescription on the lives of its members.

[…]

Human societies are almost inexhaustibly various, but there is one thing which no human (or even animal) society is even remotely like: namely, “savage” life, and civilized life below the veneer, as selfish theorists conceive it. They think of people as though they were the molecules of a confined volume of gas, which have no mutual sympathy, or any other influence, except by way of collisions with one another. This is the selfish theory to a T, as long as you impute to each molecule a ceaseless and exclusive regard to its own interests. The only thing wrong with this idea is that there is nothing whatever in reality which corresponds to it.

A quote you hear often is that “humans are one step in the jungle,” which is another form of the veneer idea in that civilization covers our true instincts, but even birds, when put in a starvation scenario, act more “selfish” and with more desperation to survive, yet they don’t have civilization, culture, or morality. There is no veneer specifically made for humans.

…what is stripped away from us under starvation or torture is not cultural, but biological. It is not the successive layers of convention, education, morality, etc. It is the successive layers of biological development which are natural to our species between infancy and mature adulthood.

Stove suggests that “savage” behavior is actually infantile behavior. When resources are low, adults regress back into panicked and teat-grappling infants in search of food.

Evolution is the last in a long line of “puppet master” theories

The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.

“Our stars rule us,” says the astrologer. “Man is what he eats,” said Feuerbach. “We are what our infantile sexual experiences made us,” says the Freudian. “The individual counts for nothing, his class situation for everything,” says the Marxist. “We are what our socioeconomic circumstances make us,” says the social worker. “We are what Almighty God created us,” says the Christian theologian. There is simply no end of this kind of stuff. What is wrong with all such theories is this: That they deny, at least by implication, that human intentions, decisions, and efforts are among the causal agencies which are at work in the world.

Richard Dawkins has been especially successful in pushing the gene puppet master idea.

…writing in the full flood of conviction of human helplessness, [Dawkins] says that “we are … robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,”etc., etc. But at the same time, of course, he knows as well as the rest of us do, that there are often other causes at work, in us or around us, which are perfectly capable of counteracting genetic influences. In fact, he sometimes says so himself, and he even says that “we have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth.”” As you see, he is just like those writers of serial stories in boys’ magazines, who used to say, in order to extricate their hero from some impossible situation, “With one bound, Jack was free!”

[…]

…sensible people take no notice, when yet another crank or charlatan publishes yet another book which says that human beings are the helpless puppets of something or other: God, or God and demons, or History, or Race, or the Unconscious, or Aliens from Outer Space, or whatever. The Selfish Gene is simply another member of this slum breed of books, and ought to have been recognized as such from the start.

[…]

It is no mystery why the supply of puppetry theories never fails: there is an unfailing demand for them. People want relief from responsibility, and puppetry theories promise them this relief.

[…]

You could put [Dawkins] down anywhere in the world and rely on him to find there, what no one had before, invisible puppet masters manipulating visible puppets.

Atheists are quick to throw away god and angels as the main cause of human behavior, and then what do they do but simply replace them with genes as the main cause of human behavior. One must wonder at the curious human need to attribute their behavior to something invisible and all-powerful.

According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.

[…]

Organisms have the adaptations that they do, according to the religion of Paley, because a single benevolent God intends them to survive and reproduce; and because that intention will be fulfilled the better, the better adapted the organisms are. According to the new religion, organisms have the adaptations they do, because many selfish gods intend to have copies of themselves, and as many copies as possible, carried by the next generation of organisms; and because that intention will be fulfilled the better, the better adapted the organisms.

[…]

Genetics has merely provided the new religionists with the precise locality of their gods, on the chromosomes of the sex cells.

Whether Darwin intended to or not, his theory swapped out one god for 30,000 powerful, purposeful, and apparently intelligent gods that control an individual human’s destiny. You are but a pathetic servant of these tiny genes.

Why is there evolution?

Where did it come from? What is driving it towards organization and consciousness? What is the reason for this process existing? Evolutionary theory does not answer this, and takes on the phenomenon of replication as an automatic given, like the existence of the Planck constant.

In particular, a molecule of DNA, or of water, or of anything, is not benefited by a replica of it brought into existence by this molecule itself, or by something else, or by nothing.

[…]

[Molecules] cannot delight in the number of replicas that they make of themselves. They are not even intelligent enough, after all, to know when they have made a replica of themselves.

Inclusive fitness is a flawed explanation to altruism

To solve the “altruism problem,” evolutionists came up with the idea of inclusive fitness, whereby you are likely to aid your relatives so that their genes can be passed, which contain identical copies of some of your genes. Stove makes the sarcastic comment that bacteria must then have extensive forms of altruism.

…what vast quantities of altruism must exist, between generations or between siblings, in all those species which reproduce either parthenogenically or by fission! For the members of these species share all their genes with their offspring or with their siblings.

[…]

Two sister bacteria, despite their genetic identity, will slug it out with each other for the means of subsistence, just like any other pair of good Darwinian girls.

[…]

A male robin red breast then, at least when defending a territory, cannot even tell the difference between a bit of red wool and a trespassing rival, even though a trespassing rival could quite easily be his brother. Yet the theory of inclusive fitness requires us to believe that he can tell the difference between his brother and a cousin, and again, between a cousin and an unrelated conspecific. Well, it is not logically, or even biologically, impossible.

[…]

…the theory of inclusive fitness still has the gaping puncture which it had at first. Namely, that it requires sibling altruism to be about as strong and common as parental, whereas in fact it is nothing of the kind. If so, we might as well admit that although, genetically, the sibling relation is “just as close” as the parent-offspring relation, biologically, it is nowhere near as close, at any rate as far as altruism is concerned.

We are puppets to genes that want their counterparts inside your relatives to reproduce, but this can’t even begin to work the way evolutionists propose unless you are told that you are a relative of someone, because the genes themselves don’t know what relation you have to a random man on the street. Genes are so stupid, in fact, that when newborn babies are accidentally switched in hospitals, the two unlucky sets of parents will altruistically raise the genes of another couple without any doubt it’s their own. Yet we’re supposed to believe that it’s these same genes that are working continuously to control you like a slave so that copies of them in you and your relatives can be allowed to replicate.

Evolution is like a buggy software program that needs constant patching as more “testing” reveals its obvious flaws. Instead of just doing away with the theory, scientists will create all sort of monstrous octopus legs and attach them to the theory, creating exceptions that even Darwin himself couldn’t have imagined.

Evolution blames nature for errors

People who believe in evolution victim-blame the organism when it acts outside the confines of evolution.

Contraception, homosexuality, natural celibacy, the love of truth or of beauty, accepting submission signals [in fighting], adopting children, and resenting baby snatchers: what a heavy catalogue of errors! It singles out our species as being the most hopelessly stupid of all the pupils in the great school of natural selection.

[…]

…scientific theory cannot possibly reprehend, in any way at all, any actual facts. It can explain them, predict them, describe them, but it cannot condemn them as errors. Astronomy cannot criticize certain arrangements of stars or planets as erroneous, and no more can biology criticize certain organisms, or characteristics of them, as erroneous.

[…]

Wherever Darwinism is in error, Darwinians simply call the organisms in question or their characteristics, an error! Wherever there is manifestly something wrong with their theory, they say that there is something wrong with the organisms.

[…]

Darwinians, rather than admit that their theory is simply not true of our species, brazenly shift the blame, and designate all of those characteristics “biological errors.”

Humans are an example of evolutionary farce

…far from every attribute being rigidly destroyed which is in the least degree injurious, in our species there is precious little except injurious attributes. Nearly everything about us, or at least nearly everything which distinguishes us from flies, fish, or rodents—all the way from practicing Abortion to studying Zoology—puts some impediment or other in the way of our having as many descendants as we could. From the point of view of Darwinism, just as from the point of view of Calvinism, there is no good in us, or none worth mentioning. We are a mere festering mass of biological errors.

[…]

Darwinism can tell you lots of truths about plants, flies, fish, etc., and interesting truths too, to the people who are interested in those things. But the case is altogether different, indeed reversed, where our own species is in question. If it is human life that you would most like to know about and to understand, then a very good library can be begun by leaving out Darwinism, from 1859 to the present hour.

Closing thoughts

As recently as three years ago I started noticing the flaws of evolution from self-examining my behavior and those of my hypersexual male peers, because you don’t pick up a book titled “Darwinian Fairytales” unless you already harbored serious doubts about the theory. I must admit that I made a mistake to use evolution as a reason to whore around with women when it was clear as day that I did not aim to reproduce. The behavior I did enact for so long can best be explained as entertainment seeking, relieving a lack of purpose in life, and wanting to feel masculine, but there was nothing evolutionary about it, and it has not at all increased my reproductive success than had I been an introverted 22-year-old and told my father to arrange a marriage for me with a girl from his Iranian hometown.

With this review I don’t aim to completely throw evolution under the bus, for it does apply quite nicely to other organisms, and natural selection has surely applied to humans during certain periods of their history, but it should not and can not be used to describe current human behavior, including your own, because any set of conditions that put humans through an evolutionary grinder are no longer present in modern civilization. Doing otherwise would be deception on a large scale, and I won’t deceive myself further by using it, even if it reduces scientific backing for some of my ideas.

Without using evolution as a tool, there is a big question that must be answered: where does traditional sex roles—and behavior—come from? Or more precisely: what are the correct sex roles for humans? The answer to the second is easier than the first. The correct sex roles are what has sustained human populations and society in the past and what will sustain human populations and society in the future. Biology need not be taken into account.

A careful study of history can clearly show what happens when men step outside of their traditional roles and what happens when women step outside of theirs, something spending ten minutes on Tumblr can verify. What are the sex roles and proper behavior of humans that allow a sustainable and mentally healthy population without ushering in the policies that would lead to a cultural collapse? The answer is the sex roles we already are familiar with, ones that have been known since Biblical times.

It’s a natural human urge to understand the “why” of how life came about, a question that was no doubt asked by the first man. The problem in answering with evolution is that—besides it being wrong—it locks your mind into a narrow perspective. Thinking that all humans act in genetic self interest clouds all your thoughts on human behavior and prevents you from seeing obvious contradictions and hidden truths. Because you have firm faith in evolution, you are not even allowing your mind to consider another viewpoint.

Say you encounter an article that says the following: “Men who go off to war have more children than men who don’t.” Evolution would describe this by saying that women want to reproduce with men who are most fit and strong and better able to defend the tribe. But let’s flip it and say “Men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do.” Evolution can describe this too! It can say, “A superior reproductive strategy is to stay with the fertile women and reproduce with them during the time the alpha males are away.” Even the simplest of minds can find an explanation once it already knows the final result it’s aiming for.

If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory. In other words, the theory is like playdough that can fit in any situation, and this is even done in the red pill portion of the manopshere to take any behavior a man or woman does and somehow justify it in terms of evolution, even if it’s based on people acting on the willful mission to not reproduce. What’s convenient for evolutionists is that none of their assertions can be proven, meaning that evolution is not more than one step above astrology in terms of describing or predicting human behavior. It’s gibberish.

Darwin’s theory came at the right time of history. The monarchy was overthrown and scientific rationalism dominated the day. The missing piece to complete the Enlightenment was a way to kill god, and Darwin came forth with a brilliant theory that did the job. The only problem is that it’s not true for humans, at least not in the way for other forms of life on earth.

There must be something else motivating and driving human beings that can’t be explained by current science, and so therefore the science we have is unable to provide a definitive and consistent account of our origin story along with our behavior. This means that if you are using evolution to structure, organize, or explain your own life, you are living a falsehood—a soothing falsehood but a falsehood nonetheless.

I must state that it’s not a comfortable position for me to neither believe in god or human evolution, for I have no working model for my own existence. It’s a weird place because my brain, for some reason, craves an origin story for where it came from. It’s searching, hunting, for something that explains how it got here, but I will be patient in this search, because I find it liberating and free that I no longer have to frame every human action through the lens of “survive and reproduce” and “all humans act in self-interest to spread their genes.”

Now that I have done this, it’s much easier to see how reproduction is not an important or essential human behavior and that evolution is nothing more than a severely flawed theory for explaining human beings.

Read More: “Darwinian Fairytales” on Amazon

Related Posts For You

newest oldest most voted
James
Guest
James
Offline

Very good article. I suggest doing some reading into the idea of the r/K selection theory as a way of explaining things. It certainly goes a fair way towards explaining the effects wealth has on reproduction rates, though it is far from perfect for some of the very reasons that you point out.

Anon.
Guest
Anon.
Offline

Émile Zola famously said that human behavior can be predicted fully in terms of two things: Innate biological traits, and social conditioning.

Darwinism only addresses the FIRST of those two. It explains how the structures in the body, and our complex emotional and psychic system came to be, over a period of time where natural selection WAS in full-blown effect, over millions of years. It was artificially suspended in the last 50-100 years, but the theory still stands to explain why our biology is the way that it is.

All animals are lead to do what nature intended them to do by a hormonal system of reward-punishment. This emotional system is still present in human beings. Your sexual urge IS your body telling you to reproduce, that’s why it there, natural selection didn’t account for condoms because they never existed over the millions of years of evolution. We are animals adapted to an environment that no longer exists.

However, nature took a curious turn somewhere and generated an organ that acts like a malleable computer system, something that was a complete random accident, just like everything else in the body. However, it is not fully autonomous, and is still governed by an insanely complex system of rules that still aren’t fully understood. One of the main social functions of the brain was to make the individual adapt to it’s tribe. Being thrown out of the tribe meant certain death. Hence the enormous tendency that people have to fully accept the ideas that surround them. Good examples of this are that in deeply religious societies, pretty much everyone that grows up there will end up religious, and the few outcasts are not really outcasts at all, they have simply received other influences (such as from social sub-groups). It is why everyone in a particular culture or society seems to think the same and have the same ideas, despite thinking that these are their own.

When things get fucked up are when ideas go against one’s biology. Think of pairbonding, if you fall in love with a girl and then you break up with her and never see her again, if it is a true chemical bonding your brain will put constant flashes of her into your mind, because biologically you are MEANT to be bonded to her, hence your emotional system is trying to force you back, but your ideas are repressing this. When one uses condoms, the sexual urge that was designed to make human beings reproduce doesn’t just magically disappear.

The root of depression and most psychiatric problems come from a conflict between ideas and biology. Think of a childless woman, she is designed to give affection to a child, the lack of this creates a pull towards it, which she represses with her ideas, and it manifests in anxiety and depression. Countless other examples of this, particularly in Western society, which forces people to go against their own biology constantly. I will not list them here, but just by reading anything in the manosphere you will see how BOTH Western men and women constantly go against their own biology, in a kind of fucked-up ideological system where one is controlled by his own culturally-imposed ideas, rather than physically by another person.

Evolution IS a completely valid theory for describing why human biology is the way it is, completely adapted to a primitive savage natural ecosystem that has nothing to do with modern societies, but it is only valid in explaining human behavior insofar as emotional tendencies are concerned. One must understand these as nature’s imposition on humans to survive and reproduce in ancient tribal environments. Today these chemical systems are a residue, but are still very present in human biology and everyday life, and can be fully understood when related back to their meaning in the tribal ecosystem. It’s a classic forebrain/hindbrain conflict. Evolution is only capable of explaining the hindbrain. The forebrain requires a whole different level of study.

Bob
Guest
Bob
Offline

You’re writing and insights are fantastic. Do you have a blog or a reddit account I can creep on? What’s your background?

Puni
Guest
Puni
Offline

lol… It´s common knowledge if you “study” a topic and not just read only some bullshits in internet. See also the movie “Idiocracy” that approach this topic with some humor.

biljay
Guest
biljay
Offline

I agree 100% with your view.

Ivory Campbell
Guest
Ivory Campbell
Offline

Can you say for sure it’s not a clash between ideas and ideas? Really with the chemical bonding and all the condom talk?

barbiquearea
Guest
barbiquearea
Offline

How does tribalism or any of that munbo jumbo explain why some humans feel the need to adopt even though they are capable of reproducing?

I’m not trying to knock the theory evolution here but I can never understand why when some people (not all mind you) see a baby left on the side of the road completely abandoned and crying. We feel the urge to take that infant home with us and give them food, shelter and put in time and effort into raising them and helping them survive? Because all of that is very counterproductive to anyone who already have kids or plan on having kids of their own someday (cause empathy is a bitch).

Now some would claim this is actually ‘kin selection’ at work where if we are not investing time and resources into our own offspring, we would still feel the need to help rear the children of relatives who share common DNA with ourselves. That would make sense except for some reason many of us still want to give care and affection towards people who are not even our blood kin. Why does this happen at all if in theory we should all be programed to focus on having our own kids and taking care of them instead of those belonging to complete strangers? Because from a evolutionary standpoint doing this gives no benefit to ourselves.

Dawkins
Guest
Dawkins
Offline

This article is, as others have already said, a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Western culture would in fact be a MALADAPTIVE “GENE”. In the theory of evolution, there have been tens of thousands of deformed unadapted people that died off. If Western culture held for long enough to have any effect on natural selection (tens of thousands of years, which it will not), what you would see is an erradication of it, as another deformed “gene” that did no good to the survival of the species. Mutations occur randomly, but until nature cruelly weeds the unadapted fuckers out, it takes thousands of years.

He suggests that the “purpose” of evolution is to survive and reproduce. There was never a purpose, things happened by pure chance. Mutations occurred in the genes, and only traits that ensured an individual reproduced would be passed on. The adaption to the primitive natural environment explains perfectly the reason for all the biological structures in terms of adaptation to that environment.

He is applying this to modern societies, saying that evolution must now make people “survive and reproduce”, so he is saying that the body is now to adapt in the period of 50 years to an ideological system that is purely a product of society? Human beings are STILL the tribesmen adapted to the ancient environment, just that some fucker put him somewhere he doesn’t belong, into an ecosystem his body is not designed for.

Labayu
Guest
Labayu
Offline

Exactly, cultural environments and technologies create new selection pressures. Humans have simply not adapted to the most recent pressures.

PrepZ
Guest
PrepZ
Offline

This un-theroy theory really reminds me of John Calhoun’s rat colony experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Early_rat_studies

Repeated several times over the years, the experiments led to the same final result: death of all the mice in the society. He developed the concept of “Behavior Sink” as a result.

We live in a similar utopian society where for much of the planet (geographically) humans basic needs are met, leaving us free to indulge our idealistic pursuits of social order and justice. The amazing thing is that the problems and symptoms mentions here — much of which we comment on daily — are the same predicted by the rat experiments. Social decline to the point of overriding the so-called biological imperative to reproduce leads the entire population to self destruct. It’s predictable and repeatable in mice. So, why not in humans as well?

Are we humans really smarter or more sophisticated that we will avoid the fate of the rat? Rather, perhaps it is because men can reason that reproduction with aberrant behaving females is so detrimental to our own well being that we simple stop procreating, leading to Roosh’s question of why he himself has not procreated. I suggest that our intelligence and primary instinct for self-preservation trumps any sense of duty to the society to procreate merely to perpetuate what we now see as a terrible and worsening culture. We simple say it is better not to bring new offspring into this situation to suffer a worse fate than ourselves.

Now, is this an evolutionary process? Or, is it as Roosh suggest and end to evolution? The fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory is the rebuttal presumption that evolution always moves *forward* to the benefit of the population and society at-large. And, in many lower functioning life forms you can make this case. But when it comes to humans, perhaps the opposite is true, and it’s our ability to reason intelligently that leads us to the natural conclusion that it is better not to perpetuate the bad of our modern day culture. Just as in Calhoun’s experiments yielded a Dunbar number (a limit to the size of a population’s ability to maintain relationships), so we as a planet have reached that number and are now in decline.

With the fixed geography of the earth, there are so few places for a dominate leader to move his tribe to and start a new, or renewed society. We’re just out of room. If humans follow rats (and we can argue if the average human really behaves more altruistically than a rat), then it’s just a matter of time before the whole human population decays into oblivion. The signs are there today in several westernized countries — aging populations, declining birth rates, social unrest. In fact, many of the behaviors Calhoun noted among the rats are the same things we talk about in the manosphere. The similarities are eerie.

So whether or not this is the final stage of evolution, it really doesn’t matter to me. I do see this as a inevitable outcome for the human species that we may not be so smart as to avoid. Maybe the dinosaurs simply allowed themselves to become extinct rather than some meteorite taking them out.

Brooklyn_Bruin
Guest
Brooklyn_Bruin
Offline

r/K selection has been discredited for decades now.

James
Guest
James
Offline

And yet we are seeing it play out right now, particularly in low-income communities. Those with wealth and success breed fewer children, but they receive the best educations and preparations for success consistent with the K-type selection theory, while in places like Detroit, you see r-type selection in full force as baby mamas seek to have as many children as possible to collect the financial benefits without any regard as to how those children will be raised or what they will accomplish.

Myra Esoteric
Guest
Myra Esoteric
Offline

“r/K selection” in terms of Rushton’s skewed ideas about race have been discredited by HBDers themselves. But r/K selection in terms of cads vs dads still persists.

WhiteSecessionist
Guest
WhiteSecessionist
Offline

You guys are just masturbating. No one cares.

Ivory Campbell
Guest
Ivory Campbell
Offline

Which, logically if evolution where still in play would mean that wealth, success, and education have absolutely no bearing on anything pertaining to nature but are man made accomplishments only significant to man.

Anon.
Guest
Anon.
Offline

r/K selection in the manosphere takes some meaning from the biological theory, but it does not mean the same.

There are two types of r/K selection: Male strategies, and female strategies.

Female strategies:
– R-selected: Life is a succession of one-night-stands, sex is separate from love, sex is very fast, love and connection take a second and unimportant role in comparison to sex, sex and sexual degeneracy is glorified, women gain very large notch-counts and meaningful relationships are rare and almost unheard of. Typical in Western societies (Anglosphere, Western Europe, now slowly extending all over the world in places where it did not exist before).

– K-selected: Sex is slower, women glorify love over sex, sex is usually attached to love, one-night-stands are not part of the culture and having sex with a man implies at least a mini-relationship, more affectionate, less transience. Typical in the Former Soviet Union, and in its most extreme form, in Muslim societies.

Male strategies:
– R-selected: Escalates ultra-fast, playerish traits, is a lover and the girl is there for the sex and for his own innate traits.

– K-selected: Waits many dates for sex, buys her things, the girl is there either for his money or for things that are not directly a part of him, such as the security he can provide, stable guy for marriage, etc.

Steve
Guest
Steve
Offline

You forgot that the Baltics are not included in K-selection, they have shifted towards R-selection since joining the European Union. All the rest of the FSU is K-selected.

Joseph Jagusah
Guest
Joseph Jagusah
Offline

you’re determining these strategies in terms of sex, not reproduction. I remember an article a while ago on RoK about the ‘cost per orgasm,’ and i was inclined to think of how useful this paradigm would be for evolution, if it only explained reproduction instead of sex.

Koanic
Guest
Koanic
Offline

Anonymous conservatives r vs k theory, sir john glubbs cycle of empire, and the problems of scale caused by the neolithic agricultural revolution explain your questions.
Evolution has barely caught up to grains and milk, much less condoms and iphones.

And I’m a christian skeptical of the mainstream evolutionary narrative.

Gentleman X
Guest

I was thinking of r/K selection while reading through the article myself.

Anon.
Guest
Anon.
Offline

Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Questioning it is ridiculous, just like questioning mathematics is ridiculous. We have actually SEEN it happen at rapid speed in bacteria.

The theory has been used in biological engineering in a technological context, and it WORKS as predicted. It would be like questioning aerodynamics when you can clearly see that the airplane does indeed fly and behaves exactly according to the equations.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Female moral superiority is a proven scientific theory. Questioning it is ridiculous, just like questioning mathematics is ridiculous. We have actually SEEN it happen at rapid speed in HR departments.

The theory has been used in social engineering in a technological context, and it WORKS as predicted. It would be like questioning aerodynamics when you can clearly see that the airplane does indeed fly and behaves exactly according to the equations.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“Female moral superiority is a proven scientific theory.”
————————-
It is?
No scientific theory is ever proven.
That’s no excuse for comparing apples to oranges.

Ace of Lances
Guest
Ace of Lances
Offline

He’s joking.

WhiteSecessionist
Guest
WhiteSecessionist
Offline

LOL you’re a dumbass.

Morality is a totally alien concept to a woman, it’s something that needs to be artificially imposed on her, otherwise she retrogrades back to the jungle.

The Spooky Ghost
Guest
The Spooky Ghost
Offline

I thought that the proportion of women in things like HR was actually more because women are typically viewed as being more approachable and less imposing…

Boris
Guest
Boris
Offline

Female professional and college sports are the jokes and shows how inferior women really are. They want equal pay when no one comes to see them play. Women suck and many are not even any good at that. Bitches.

Ulick McGee
Guest
Ulick McGee
Offline

Religious nut.

Mark
Guest
Mark
Offline

OK that is true, but obviously you overlooked the parts when the editor explained that evolution is definitely applicable to OTHER species, but that he believes humans are an anomaly. I do agree with this, that humans behave not only based on their instincts/the chemical reactions that urge us to act a certain way, and also act upon their emotions and social conditioning. What other species would see a deformed child struggling to survive and feel love and compassion instead of emotionlessly assessing the pros/cons before killing it? What other animal would develop complex systems of writing to preserve ideas and knowledge, and create large vocabularies to describe every emotion? We are unique; usually when a human is given the opportunity (extra food, medicine, money, etc) their altruism comes before their selfish survival instincts.

Ivory Campbell
Guest
Ivory Campbell
Offline

The article was about modern humans not bacteria or math or aerodynamics.

Armitage Smyth
Guest
Armitage Smyth
Offline

Rape produces offspring. Shown in many primates and common ancestor.
Therefore rape is an evolutionary strategy. Most common in war.

Saint James Matamoros
Guest

Or taxation….

PauBrasil
Guest
PauBrasil
Offline

I like the way you question the faith in science, sometimes people forget that science is done by questioning and not merely propagating someone else’s opinion.
On top of that, I am still not convinced that the evolutionary/scientific explanations for our urge to have sex are flawed. Evolutionary theory doesn’t seem to be deterministic, it’s simply tendencies that we can, through volition, overcome or use to achieve our own particular values.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

True, I mean evolutionary biology explains why we have the drive to have sex. Orgasms feel great because there is a biological desire to encourage reproduction. If not for the great feeling of orgasm, females would be avoided by all men. Even if you are just pumping and dumping, this is in response to some biological drive.

OrthodoxChristian
Guest
OrthodoxChristian
Offline

” If not for the great feeling of orgasm, females would be avoided by all men.”

Even if you somehow removed pleasure from sex and sex from marriage, you’d still have men and women pairing up and producing (by artificial insemination) large families (7+ children) just for the love of children and family life. Putin handing out “Order of Parental Glory” awards”

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/users/3587/3-Jun-2015/apsh3cr6vrrqdhodh5wstnu1ylic1bxl.jpg

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/users/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aoriginal%3Aname%5D/3-Jun-2015/l6ae4jrre2au4hyqu7llckam5gleakkv.jpg?itok=xgI5ptzZ

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/users/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aoriginal%3Aname%5D/3-Jun-2015/igzsszkac7tejhejrprc6hntv0kkgp70.jpg?itok=lNqBgBMl

The Order of Parental Glory is awarded to parents (including adoptive parents), who have raised seven or more children and pay great care to the next generation’s health, education, and physical, spiritual and moral development. The decoration was instituted by a presidential executive order in May 2008, and was first awarded on January 13, 2009.

Garth
Guest
Garth
Offline

Your point is well taken, but let’s not forget a major mittigating factor: Medical nano technology. They can now produce human sperm from bone marrow, and the japanese have supposedly developed a human incubtion system, and female eggs wil be cloned. I suspect we will see the first human kid popped out of a blender withing 50 years. I’m not saying this is a good thing because human scientist still do not know everything, but this does not stop humanity from being smart idiots.

Steve
Guest
Steve
Offline

But we would never have gotten to this point of medical technology without an orgasm feeling so good. That’s what drove primates (and most others in the animal kingdom) to reproduce. Early humans and our older ancestors had no idea that sperm created babies and had sex because if felt good. Roosh is still carrying out his biological conditioning by having orgasms regardless of how he feels about having children.

OrthodoxChristian
Guest
OrthodoxChristian
Offline

“But we would never have gotten to this point of medical technology without an orgasm feeling so good. That’s what drove primates (and most others in the animal kingdom) to reproduce. Early humans and our older ancestors had no idea that sperm created babies and had sex because if
felt good”

Before the flood, mankind used to live up to 900 years old while being more intelligent than modern man. They had technology that we’re still catching up to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x39eRJA1aVU

Oppenheimer, who was very familiar with ancient Hindu texts, believed that nuclear weapons were being RE-discovered. When asked if his was the first ever detonation of of a nuclear bomb, he said. ‘Yes, in modern times’.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“Before the flood, mankind used to live up to 900 years old while being more intelligent than modern man.”
———————–
I’ll bet they were all Sumerian kings too!
They liked to exaggerate the wisdom and age of their rulers.
They also thought snakes were immortal cuz they shed their skin and the new coat’s all shiny and stuff.
Know how they got that way?
Cuz the first snake tricked the first woman into eating from the tree of death (later changed to tree of knowledge) while the snake helped himself to the tree of life (briefly mentioned in Genesis).

Todd Lewis
Guest
Todd Lewis
Offline

Do you have a blog or something?

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Fuck Putin he didn’t do any diversity in those photos he only selected white parents let’s go to world war 3 nuclear missiles against Putin.

WhiteSecessionist
Guest
WhiteSecessionist
Offline

Don’t worry, on the streets of Moscow it will be all Muslims soon. Happy now?

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, based on your theory, but you don’t need a woman to have an orgasm.

Monad
Guest
Monad
Offline

True, but where would you prefer to put your dick, in your hand, or a vagina?

WhiteSecessionist
Guest
WhiteSecessionist
Offline

You know there is nothing natural about masturbation. It’s behaviour that humans need to be taught by the filthy and sleazy porn industry.

I had no clue what masturbation was and I would have never done it if I hadn’t had this jewish filth forced on me.

Animals don’t even masturbate.

OleRocker
Guest
OleRocker
Offline

Dogs hump human legs or stuffed animals.

Walter Augier
Guest
Walter Augier
Offline

Evolution is not still – it is working. Modern humans might as well be mutated and ending up eventually having bodies that do not respond any longer to birth control. The bodies might also mutate so that they end up reproducing by other means(other than intercourse). Another possibility is that those humans who don’t want to reproduce will die off(makes sense – since they don’t reproduce they’ll go extinct). Any way, those child-free people are simply a minority, just like homosexuals are. They could represent simply a small error, not the overall gene pool. The majority of people in the world are still poor and are actually physically more fit and reproduce more. Our modern people who choose to be child-free are not spreading their genes – evolution, thus, prevents them from continuation. Surprisingly, the numbers of those child-free people are increasing! But the numbers of those poor who breed like cockroaches is increasing too and a lot faster. We’ve got already over 7 billion people on the planet due to those “poor” self-reproducing people. Besides, most people in civilized world have to wear glasses/contact lenses because their vision is so much worse than the vision of people from poorer societies. Besides the poorly-sighted, there are more and more of the obese in civilized societies. Why would an obese individual would pass his or her “obese” genes while you have much fitter and stronger individuals who are struggling to survive? May be, an obesity is also a modern phenomenon, that evolution is working on right now. May be, the obese will die off or they will mutate so that their future generations will stop absorbing sugars as efficiently as they do now to prevent obesity and continue normal reproduction. There are so many factors and so many possibilities that it is impossible to conclude that the evolution stopped working at this point of time. Last century changed our living conditions, but for the evolution it was like a “millisecond” of time. Just wait at least another 200000 years, then see what happens and who survives!

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Perhaps this is how human civilization stagnates. The most productive classes, on the whole, are not reproducing while the poor masses are.

The “survivors” of the fittest, from a darwinian point of view, are not the most mentally fit; therefore progress stalls.

Hell, maybe that’s not even a bad thing. I find more to admire about the developing world than the first world (not that i’m giving up my air conditioning any time soon but the human dynamics are better, and I am interested in the stories of these men who have permanently left for poorer nations but are happier).

Perhaps the world will just be fine without the west investing more degenerate entertainment films, making a thinner iphone that can further distract us from experiencing life, and churning out 100,000 new porno films a year. Maybe society will be just fine as the rest of the world that’s several decades behind the west, slowly catches up.

Ryre
Guest
Ryre
Offline

Human beings are a social species. Status is therefore of prime importance in the struggle to survive. One’s ability to command resources and respect from fellow humans is the most important factor. And humans struggle for status constantly and relentlessly.

Chimps don’t battle other chimps for every mouthful of food, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to a struggle to survive/, i.e. natural selection. Being an intelligent, social species, chimps’ struggles play out in a complex social hierarchy. Human society is vastly more complex than that of chimpanzees. Why would we expect humanity’s evolutionary drives and struggles, playing out in the context of modern society and culture, to be as crude and obvious as those of vastly less complex, less social species?

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Offline

What evolutionary point is there to having a social structure that consistently and deliberately reduces reproduction? Wouldn’t such a structure (Western) die out instead of spreading successfully across the world like it is now?

Ryre
Guest
Ryre
Offline

Evolution doesn’t have “points.” Evolutionary drives are a factor in behavior, but not the only factor. Why would a soldier charge into machine-gun fire and certain death? Why would a species invent technologies like nuclear weapons that could result in their extinction? Why do horses mate with donkeys, producing infertile offspring? Why are there seedless grapes? Why do deer freeze in headlights? Why don’t animals die when they become too old to breed? The answer in each case is different, but none prove that evolutionary drives aren’t relevant, just because it is hard to draw a straight 1:1 connection.

Why do humans voluntarily reduce reproduction? Because the interaction between our drives and our environment, mediated by consciousness and culture, is complex. Because birth control has existed for too short a time for natural selection to select for adaptations to it. Perhaps in the future we will see more people with allergies to latex, resistance to birth control pills, less intelligence and more sexual impulsivity, or a predilection for fundamentalist religion. Perhaps we’ll actually become a species with a stronger desire for babies as opposed to merely for sex. But whatever we look like 100 generations from now, it’ll have to do with which of us are passing our genes on today and which are not, and thus what traits are selected for.

p.s. If by “what evolutionary point is there…” you mean “what evolutionary/survival advantage might there be to reducing reproduction,” perhaps the answer is: looking at the world today, which societies seem best positioned to survive into a changing future, one in which we may face a degraded environment with fewer resources. 1) societies like the U.S., Germany, and Japan, or 2) societies like Bangladesh, the Sudan, and Guatemala?

Anon.
Guest
Anon.
Offline

The last paragraph is wrong and has nothing to do with natural selection.

Keep in mind that Western culture was essentially designed in a laboratory. It will stay in effect until it is no longer useful, then it will disappear. It will have zero effect on natural selection, which only truly impacts on the scale of millions of years.

Ryre
Guest
Ryre
Offline

You may be right, I was speculating, this isn’t my field of expertise. My point is, suppose hypothetically that we have two societies, X and Y. X controls its reproduction and limits population growth. Y does not. Over the next 1000 years, society Y experiences a population boom followed by a crash, and eventually the land on which society Y depended for survival has been reduced by overuse to a desert incapable of supporting life. Every member of society Y has died out. Meanwhile, society X continues with a steady population. Natural selection has favored the members of society X, has it not? Controlling population turned out to have a survival advantage in the long term. If the members of society X had certain biological traits, say left-handedness, in greater proportion than the members of society Y, the human race would now have evolved to be more left-handed.

What’s wrong with my logic here?

Labayu
Guest
Labayu
Offline

Wrong, human evolution has actually accelerated over the last 10,000 years due to the new selection pressures created by cultural environments: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

ihopmenu
Guest
ihopmenu
Offline

Agreed: Western culture and complex “First World” societies are *artificial*. Not only that, they are artificially perpetuated through entertainment media, political strategies and economic strategies.

Why do people in Third World & Developing economics want to replicate the “standard of living” in the U.S. of A.? Because they are exposed to movies and TV and ideas that we send over there. How do factories, capital flows and other factors of production end up in China and Bangladesh? They are imported in by First World corporations. Why is WESTERN society spreading and dominating? Because that is what is popular right now. Just because it is popular and spreading doesn’t mean it will always dominate and never die out.

Roosh is smart enough to know all of this, but writes in a controversial way to spark several hundreds of comments, which is why his websites are successful and get high traffic and page views. This high traffic and pageviews and higher fanbase for Roosh’s sites translates to more money for him, which means he doesn’t have to work a shitty job 40 hrs a week, which means he gets more free time and energy to think about these questions and go sport fucking around the world. Roosh has essentially built a system that provides him with resources, status, freedom, and pussy, but he is NOT reproducing, so he thinks Darwinian evo. is therefore wrong. One can make the same argument if you use successful actors like Leonardo DiCaprio as an example. Leo DiCaprio has probably fucked 1000’s of supermodels thousands of times, but he has 0 children. Therefore, Darwin was wrong about humans, hence Darwin is wrong all together!

Ulick McGee
Guest
Ulick McGee
Offline

US, Germany and Japan.

incognitoperson
Guest
incognitoperson
Offline

Western culture has been in decline since the advent of effective contraception

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

He said that humans are a social species, and you bit hook line and sinker.

That’s ok, you’re still on the road to discovery.

…discovery that there is no such thing as “species” in evolution. Yes, that sounds crazy coming from a creationist so here is a respected professor and evolutionist that agrees with me, Werner Kunz.

http://www.amazon.com/Species-Exist-Principles-Taxonomic-Classification/dp/3527332073

In the theory of evolution, each genetic organism is unique and carries with it mutations that are unique to it. Therefore there are no reasons to start out with the premise that there are species.

People start out with the idea of “species” only because it is the tradition inherited from 2,000 years of Natural Theology. Look that shit up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
Although natural theology is not Christian, Christians carried science throughout the ages into its modern formulation, and one relic is the concept of species, or as the Old Testament calls it, each to its Kind, or as a Platonist each to its Form. (Plato being a Natural Theologist, perhaps the first Natural Theologist recognized by secular scholars.)

But as a trained biologist perhaps you already know that “species” has more than 6 definitions, none of them settled, all of them contradictory. Once again, evolution is probably just wrong.

Bob
Guest
Bob
Offline

Evolution isn’t a process we are going through. It’s more like the explanation for how the end result got to be what it is. Evolution isn’t a driving force causing things to get “better” or people to improve or get more intelligent. It’s just who is equipped to deal with the current environment the best and thus survive. Check out the movie Idiocracy. We might completely be in an environment that favors reproduction of idiots or careless people. We as humans could be evolving the be careless and stupid.

But evolutionary biology still drive our wants and needs but because we are able to override that with complex thoughts we can do things like buy condoms or pull out. I would say the current environment is of course favoring alpha males to reproduce or men with tons of resources to raise a kid. Also, you don’t know FOR SURE if you don’t have offspring out there. There may or may not be a cute Indonesian girl that fathered a child for me in SE asia.

God
Guest
God
Offline

Evolution isn’t a process we are going through. It’s more like the explanation for how the end result got to be what it is.

errr, yes it is.

Bob
Guest
Bob
Offline

No it’s not. You fundamentally don’t understand what evolution is. If you think you personally are “evolving” into something else, you’re an idiot.

Try reading some Richard Dawkins.

God
Guest
God
Offline

I think it is you who doesn’t understand.

Evolution doesn’t pack up its bags and say “ok job done, its quitting time”. I dont think “i personally” am evolving lol. But given enough time, yes there will be evidence of further evolution in everything, if the theory of evolution itself is correct.

i see what your saying, but evolution doesnt stop, in a million years from now, its possible that we could have evolved into beings that no longer need to mate to reproduce for instance.

Bob
Guest
Bob
Offline

Seriously read Dawkins. There isn’t a force causing you or humans to change or “evolve” Evolution is the name given to the observable effects of what happens when environments act on populations. Various mutations will cause variety. Some traits will survive the environment better. Those that survive are what proliferate. This can be called evolution, but there isn’t a process we are going through on an individual level of “getting better”

cantre
Guest
cantre
Offline

epigenetics

Vince Gotti
Guest
Vince Gotti
Offline

Evolution is merely adaption basically.

Delltron Zero
Guest
Delltron Zero
Offline

Yes, to your final question.

Evolution, remember, is not there to simply preserve all species. Species go extinct, as you acknowledge.

One way of thinking about this is that perhaps from an evolution perspective, human beings have reached the point where it makes more sense for humans to not reproduce.

With a population of approaching 7 billion, and with a natural ecosystem increasingly unable to accommodate such a demanding species, why would human beings be allowed to reproduce indefinitely?

There are checks and balances, I suppose. I often play around with the idea of modernization from this angle. The more “progress” achieve (social, technological, biological, and so on), there is always a check:

For instance, humans have reached a point where they seem to have stayed the very real former fear of disease, have learned how to farm and produce food cheaply and to counteract natural forces (to a certain extent), have found better nutritional and medicinal techniques to prolong life expectancy much more than before–thus creating this population problem.

But with this technological “progress” comes the ability to annihilate more people than every was possible with nuclear weapons, comes urban crowding that boosts competition for territory, comes globalization which spells the death of local communal cultures and, moreover, the intensification of scarce resources like water and other natural resources.

I agree that we have not necessarily “evolved,” that things are in a decline state, but this could all be in accordance with how other species have also become extinct, albeit in a different fashion.

Dinosaurs dominated far far longer this earth than humans have, but all that remains are relics of their fossils buried in the dust.

I tend toward theism because I can’t speak of a purpose to this madness otherwise, but I cannot nevertheless rule out the possibility that devolution is also built within the theory of evolution.

To come directly, the scarcity of reproduction actually makes sense with how humans have evolved, as well as with the augmentation of the ability for humans to totally annhilate each other with the same set of scientific principles that preserves life and postpones death.

YMMV of course.

P.S. I enjoy reading your blog.

deshler
Guest
deshler
Offline

There’s not supposed to be “a point”, organisms adapt to their surroundings. You say evolution doesn’t apply to human beings; and you’re wrong, but you’re on to something. Human beings are the only animal that creates a SOCIETY (and a changing society at that), which is a new evolutionary pressure that other organisms do not experience. If you look at human evolution over the past 10,000 years, it has evolved at a rate that; if stayed consistent over the entire existence of humanity, would render us incomparable to our other ancestors, the great apes. The reason for the “10,000 year explosion” is because human beings created civilization, the ultimate evolutionary pressure. You are different from your ancestors genetically going back even five to ten thousand years. Read the book that I suggested in my other reply to this article. I would be interested to see your thoughts on it.

Daniel Ramos
Guest
Daniel Ramos
Offline

Interesting. So i take it by your responses that you have in essence proven the “theory” of evolution to be the fact of evolution?

So where exactly is the missing link evidence? Can you post a link to it please?

For the record, i don’t believe in the concept of human evolution, i believe in the concept of human de-evolution.

If you are unfamiliar with it, i suggest you look it up.

deshler
Guest
deshler
Offline

You’re misusing the term “theory” as its used in science. “Theory” in science does not refer to someone’s opinion or philosophy, as its used in typical language. “De-evolution” is insinuating that “evolution” means for a species to improve, another gross misunderstanding of a scientific concept. Evolution is a the process of an organism adapting to its environment, hence why creating an environment that caters to the breeding of a bunch of shiftless, brainless degenerates like we have in America today, can quickly create a change in the human genome in front of your eyes. How someone can look at genetic mutations such as lactose tolerance and sickle cell that are less than 10,000 years old and not believe in evolution is beyond me.

Daniel Ramos
Guest
Daniel Ramos
Offline

I’m not misusing it, i am stating that the belief in evolution has not been undeniably proven. Just because a collective of arrogant scientists chooses to believe in it (it’s not unanimous btw) does not therefore make the theory infallible. As i said and as you failed to refute, there is as yet no evidence of the missing link which ties us to Darwin’s monkeys from which we supposedly originated from.

While i do believe that animals do indeed evolve (from dinosaurs to birds, for ex) i see no definitive proof of that in humans, merely educated conjecture. Since we possess a higher consciousness that makes us involved in how we interact in our environment, i therefore question the infallible belief in evolution as you have presented it. If you can provide me with undeniable evidence i will of course reconsider.

With regard to my belief in de-evolution and since you are obviously unfamiliar with it, i suggest you look into the research of German physicist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for a brief understanding of his theories, specifically those which describe de-evolution of the traditional homosapien.

When you mention “evolution” i think you mistake it for adaptation, which is actually different. Adaptation is a means by which a human organism (autochthonous, invariably) adapts to its environment in order to maximize its survival potential. The organism itself has input on that adaptation, however marginal. The adaptation however can be reversed if that organism migrates to another environment and especially if it copulates with other organisms who also adapted to their environments. This explains why Blacks had hair that better suited them to their arid climates, why Caucasians had a hirsute physiology to better suit their gelid environments, and so forth. The intellectually redoubtable Mr Blumenbach’s research scientifically expounds on this, so again i suggest researching him further.

But first i want to ask you, how long does evolution take? I have heard of scientists claiming that evolution takes millions of years, and i have recently heard them say it can happen in a relatively few weeks, such as it the case with a recently mentioned bird. So which is it? Or is the belief in evolution excluded from the normal scientific method assigned to prove a theory as otherwise infallible?

You are free to believe what you like, however

ihopmenu
Guest
ihopmenu
Offline

Roosh, you assume that (1) evolutionary forces work on social structures and complex social behaviors such as “Western society” and (2) because the Western structure/society is successfully spreading it will always spread and never die out.

Obviously, (2) is incorrect: we haven’t been alive for long enough to conclude that Western society will always dominate just because we currently see it spreading and dominating. If we were live for long enough and see the whole outcome play out, it is likely that Western society/structures will die out in favor of a new model, or a return to Traditional structures.

Assumption (1) is also incorrect since Darwinian evolution describes the way natural selection works on random mutations: random mutations which aid an organism’s survival or sexual reproduction are continued, while random mutations which hinder an organism’s survival or sexual reproduction are gradually weeded out.

Human intelligence is a random mutation, and it arises from enlarged prefrontal cortex regions at the individual brain level, as well as the way it aggregates in societies as layers of “knowledge”. More advanced societies such as the U.S. have more layers of knowledge such as tech and science that build and build upon each other over years and decades. Less advanced societies have less knowledge and therefore behave more in a more primitive way, like isolated tribes in the Amazon who still struggle to survive, adapt and have sex the way Darwin describes.

Human intelligence as it is expressed in First World modern cities and “Western Society” is therefore unexplained or inconsistent with Darwinian evolution because it is by it’s very core essence *artificial* and not natural.

Modern human behavior within complex economically/technologically advanced cities are very different from the way human behavior was in primitive periods (which you mention) and the way it is in primitive societies that currently exist even in the present-day.

Evolution theory applies to modern human beings but because we transgress it at every turn with our materialism and artificial behaviors (e.g. sport fucking without reproducing, making money to get food and careers, and working out at in gyms instead of getting exercise from physicality). And, lastly, because Evolution theory cannot explain the unpredictable chaos that arises from this mutation we call human intelligence that is very different from simpler random mutations like a bird’s longer beak or thorns on a plant.

Human intelligence and consciousness is arguably the #1 hardest phenomenon for us to explain, predict and understand, and it is just as hard to explain/understand as the Origin Story of human existence itself.

I don’t think Darwinian evolution is “wrong” per se because it cannot explain and predict human behavior that currently tends toward less reproduction. I think it’s more fair to say that it is *incomplete*.

But hey, I’m just an anonymous guy writing to you, someone who I’ve never met, using a metal computer that is processing little tiny electrons across the air along “wi-fi” waves to debate an article on “the internet”, when I could be out trying to get food and then trying to fill an ovulating fertile young girl’s pussy with my semen, so who knows.

ua2
Guest
ua2
Offline

The future is owned by those who show up. Perhaps Roosh, the time window you are analyzing is too small.

It could very well be a fact that the western structure dies out literally over the course of a 1000+ years due reduction of reproduction compared to other societies.

Efa Owuya
Guest
Efa Owuya
Offline

Said structure would reduce reproduction and limit said act to those who could adapt in the best way, rather than to completely stop reproduction.

Libertas
Guest
Libertas
Offline

Well, this is an interesting article. Agreed with some points and disagreed with others.

I think you should read some of the essays by Nathan Hagens, who goes over how certain inherited behaviors can actually work against us (in this case how they’re leading to rapid resource depletion, which I would argue is the reason, consciously or not, that people are not reproducing in the West), and also a book I read a long time ago called “Why is Sex Fun?” by Jared Diamond, which goes beyond the narrow “survive and reproduce” model to explain the important *social* aspects of human sexual behavior that are more or less universal.

The key point though, that I think you’re hinting at here is how the theory of evolution shouldn’t be used as a completely satisfactory explanation for some human behavior (as we both know, the altruism in the West is reaching suicidal levels) and more importantly that societies [b]should not[/b] be using the theory as some kind of guidepost for ethics or values, and that I do agree with.

John L
Guest
John L
Offline

Maybe self-limiting reproduction is part of evolutionary strategy. Since infant mortality is reduced to almost zero, the collective cultural evolutionary stratagem limits reproduction in light of potential resource limits (over population).

Mark Fox
Guest
Mark Fox
Offline

Except that overpopulation is a myth. Human beings don’t even occupy 10% of the landmass on this planet and food is not in short supply unless you are facing interference from other humans.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

In your opinion.

The more humans there are on the planet, the scarcer resources such as fresh potable water, meats (which require acres of water and millions of gallons of water), fossil fuels, and size of dwelling units, and the greater the prevalence of diseases, destruction of nature, genetically modified food, hormone and anti-biotic laced meats, globalization of economies.

While it is probably true that humanity could still exist fairly well with twice as many people on the planet, I feel it is already “over” populated and would prefer a planet with a smaller population. While there are real tangible benefits to a smaller population, what benefits does a larger population give you?

Mark Fox
Guest
Mark Fox
Offline

Not an opinion. It’s a fact. On the continental United States alone, human beings only occupy at most 5.6% of the land mass.

We’re not even close to squeezing into this ball.

Bavieca
Guest
Bavieca
Offline

If each individual human being simply needs room to stand motionless like the statue of David and can defeat hunger, thirst, diseases, elements, drowsiness, etc simply by wishing it like a Genie does then yes perhaps we can have at least 975 billion people on this planet without taking even the slightest toll upon our life quality.

But the sad fact is, you can’t even manspreading without getting arrested.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/02/war-on-men-first-arrests-for-manspreading-on-new-york-subway/

Mister Alighieri
Guest
Mister Alighieri
Offline

I understand the original posters point that the human population could inhabit much more of the terra than we do. But as several others and even Roosh points out, we don’t face the same pressures directly that evolution holds to be true. The artificial environments that humans excel at creating, behave like the laboratories they mimic(for good or ill of the culture and individuals involved). And humans seem to be reproducing the famous mouse study on a citywide scale. An organism will react to the environment it’s presented. When we as a civilization pack people ever more densely into these created environments, creating perceived scarcity, subjectively the organisms often self limit out of their inherently flawed map of reality. I really think evolution explains the mechanism of how we developed but only hints at why we behave as we do.

Labayu
Guest
Labayu
Offline

Many species have the urge to deliberately limit reproduction. Some birds will push one egg out of the nest, because there are situations in which attempting to raise two offspring is less likely to result in one successful surviving adult than focusing all resources on one. The real issue though, is that human tendencies are simply not adapted to birth control or the current social environment, so any tendencies toward self-limiting can easily be maladaptive from the perspective of net-reproductive success.

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

Yeah, I agree. Not being a believer in a supreme being, and having studied evolution and having a thorough understanding of its workings, I’ve also wondered about the place of human beings in the evolutionary model. All I could ever come up with is that, while in basic organisms, their reproduction stops when the resources run out (or they start killing off), in human beings our reproduction stops when we PERCEIVE that we have insufficient resources to reproduce. In some third world countries, people reproduce plentifully because they actually want to increase their own resources, securing themselves for old age sort of thing, same as in ancient European civilizations. However, in western societies, advertising and materialism makes people think they’re not successful if they don’t drive a fancy car, don’t have a fancy house etc, so we are brainwashed to PERCEIVE that we don’t have sufficient resources to be worthy of reproduction. I can sort of back this up by looking at the behavior of my friends who have immigrated from Zimbabwe and from Zambia when they were already 25 or 27. They do act more upon their evolutionary drives than I do – someone who grew up in the west. They have already impregnated a number of women during the few years that they’ve been in North America. I can only ignorantly assume that reproduction in the countries they’re from is more geared toward increasing resources for old age. So, perhaps Darwin was incorrect to say evolution programs species to reproduce until the resources run out. Perhaps evolution programs species to strive for maximum resources instead, and maybe reproduction is a result of resource maximization. That could explain why, in poorer countries, people reproduce to secure themselves for old age (resources-by-offspring), and why in western countries people don’t reproduce if they have a perceived lack of resources (emphasis on perceived as in: “no woman will want me because I don’t have an expensive condo and Benz”). In reality, these women don’t care about your resources of course, as proven by the many western women that have been knocked up by my Zimbabwean and Zambian friends. All women want is an alpha to get fucked by, which is what my African friends did, and they knocked them up. This means that it is only western men who get brainwashed by perception-of-lack-of-resources, because it is only western advertising that causes that inferiority complex. My African friends have no such inferiority complex, so they reproduce far more, in this case with western women here in North America, but the location wouldn’t actually matter to them. So, if evolution programs species to strive for maximum resources rather than maximum offspring, it would also explain rather complex hierarchies in chimps, and why they’re not constantly battling each other for their food, hierarchies in chickens (pecking order), and so on. Efficient division of resources probably became the primary target of evolution, because maximizing resources led to a maximizing of offspring. If maximizing resources leads to maximizing offspring, it makes sense that species would have evolved to first maximize resources, and then to maximize offspring. So perhaps western men are trapped in the continual process of maximizing resources, and due to their advertising-induced inferiority complex, they never get to a stage where they feel they have enough resources to reproduce, while my African friends, who haven’t had the western brainwashing, do not have the same perception?

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

“I know your blood is already boiling from reading the headline above and
that your intellectual self-defense mechanisms have been activated to
refute all ideas you are about to encounter henceforth…..”

No at all. I was thinking it’s about time somebody spoke the truth. The whole article was well presented.

Not wealthy and successful, I married young, had kids immediately, and it was the best decision I ever made. According to survival of the fitness theories, only the strongest, most educated, smartest, will reproduce, right? Yet, as people saw in that movie Idiocracy, it isn’t true at all. Those of us in the trailer park never stopped having babies, never really plunged into this so called blue pill world. So that either means the most educated, most successful, are examples of human failure, are the least fit, or evolutionary theories are wrong.

Considering what I’ve seen of feminist academia and the behavior of many so called successful people, I like to embrace the idea that they are less fit and the world is attempting to remove them from the gene pool, but that is only a pleasant fantasy I entertain.

Bob
Guest
Bob
Offline

“According to survival of the fitness theories, only the strongest, most educated, smartest, will reproduce, right? ”

You fundamentally don’t understand how evolution works. Try reading Dawkins.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

Evolution takes time, a LOT of time. Your behaviour means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce, the instinct has not died, it is only overwritten by cultural indoctrination.

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

“Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce…”

I’m aware this is a very feminine and romantic notion, but our desire to have sex is actually a desire for intimacy and communion with another. That is our most powerful urge. Reproduction was tucked in there to catch us unawares, as it was through much of human history, before the invention of birth control and abortion.

If anyone rationally, reasonably made a well educated and informed choice about having babies, there would be no babies. They are not cost effective, they are not beneficial to our own survival, they are called dependents for a reason. Many of us love them dearly, but from a purely logical perspective, they are not logical at all.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

You’re confusing things. Oxytocin, the cuddle hormone of intimacy, is responsible for the development of parenting in humans but the sexual desire is driven by dopamine. There’s no desire for intimacy prior to ejaculation, it’s an urge for a release.

The fact that despite the cultural indoctrination and the variety of contraceptive methods, humans still reproduce is a prove of the brutal force of evolution.

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

“There’s no desire for intimacy prior to ejaculation, it’s an urge for a release”

All in good humor here, but you’re going to have to speak for yourself because you are only one side of the equation. I assure you oxytocin and a desire for intimacy are quite present on the other side of things. Oxytocin men actually absorb from us through osmosis, your own being in shorter supply.

“The fact that despite the cultural indoctrination and the variety of
contraceptive methods, humans still reproduce is a prove of the brutal
force of evolution.”

I suspect that is more the result of dopamine intoxication. Look at how many people today still seem to have absolutely no idea where babies come from. Women especially can be completely clueless about cause and effect. If 20 year old girls did not have their brains soaked in a chemical soup, placing them in a bubble of bliss, there would be no babies.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

So you’re a female …

Case closed.

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

And you are a brilliant man to have caught on so quickly. I always assume the girl in the dress will give me away,but what do I know.

Harvey Wallbanger
Guest
Harvey Wallbanger
Offline

I want to try and take you seriously. Do you not think that sexual desire and the desire for closeness (a term i like better than communion or intimacy) are distinct? Consider the raw arousal you feel when you are masturbating, is the desire for “communion” also present? Or the arousal you feel when you see something sexy, it has nothing to do with closeness.

What say you?

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

I say that even when someone is alone or fantasizing or seeing something sexy, they are ultimately dreaming of intimacy or closeness with another person. They are generally not fantasizing about reproducing.

I think our porn focused culture has tried to separate sexuality from intimacy, even to separate actual people, from the flat two dimensional images on a piece of paper, but in spite of all that, it is still intimacy, connection, closeness that motivates sexuality for both men and women. Men however are much better at compartmentalizing and therefore denying that fact, but I still believe it to be true.

Harvey Wallbanger
Guest
Harvey Wallbanger
Offline

Thanks for replying substantively but I have say that I think don’t really understand human sexuality or intersexual dynamics that well. So, let me break it down very simply for you:

1. When we speak of arousal, it’s generally measured by observable biological phenomena that then trigger behaviors. But the arousal comes first. Many studies have been done that look at genital blood flow etc (the standard scientific measure for sexual arousal, in case you were not aware).

There are big differences between men’s and women’s sexual arousal and what stimulates it. For example, due to evolutionary and competitive pressures for males living in a partial tournament intersexual dyanmic, and given female sexual selection dominating, males have developed to become aroused in a matter of seconds, even to full arousal. For women it begins slower and then builds more gradually, but still happens in a pretty short period of time, still minutes.

However, women are stimulated by all scenes of sexuality. In numerous studies of sexual arousal, women and men are shown scenes of various sex acts. Hetero women were aroused by women having sex with each other, homosexual sex between men, animal sex and hetero sex between men and women. Hetero men were aroused only by scenes of hetero sex between men and women.

So, when I speak of arousal, I’m talking about the kind that can be measured by genital blood flow and how arousal is discussed by scientists.

2. Sexuality has long been separated from intimacy by men and women, long before porn came along. In fact, before the dominance of Christian culture in the west, the overt sexuality of some societies would be considered downright scandalous. Take the Etruscans, where nakedness was not considered wrong, but instead the human form was adored and sex was not shamed. Many other cultures have encouraged libidinousness and wild sexual behavior. What Christianity brought us is not a human norm.

Just consider prostitution, the ultimate form of transactional sex without intimacy that there could be. It’s been around as long as recorded history.

So your analyses doesn’t really hold up. I think you are just presenting your biases as fact and argument, but if you consider what I’ve said here, they don’t really hold up.

I used to think as you do about this, fyi. But I discovered that my own sexual attraction wasn’t as bound up with love and romance as I once thought it was. Yes, I do readily acknowledge that humans get “attachment” needs met via sex, and that intimacy is something we all want. I just don’t think they are paired. I’m not saying closeness and intimacy aren’t important, I just think that I can have sex with someone but not be super close to them other than when I’m having sex with them.

Maybe you mean when sex is actually happening? My experience is that I do feel close to a woman when I’m having sex with her. But by that time I’ve gone a long ways beyond being attracted to her. We’ve built up some kind of agreement, connection that leads to the sex – even if in only a few minutes.

I’m just talking about arousal and desire being distinct, not the morality of it. I do not find that a desire to be close causes me to be aroused. In fact, I’d say it’s the other way around.

Bavieca
Guest
Bavieca
Offline

“I say that even when someone is alone or fantasizing or seeing something sexy, they are ultimately dreaming of intimacy or closeness with another person. They are generally not fantasizing about reproducing.”

Not me, I fantasize busting a nut into the front and rear hole of Taylor Swift then depart in no time flat. Perhaps after finished fucking her, other dudes may fantasize having some meaningful conversation with her about the ramifications if Vercingetorix were victorious at Alesia or how Murica would look today had the Confederates won but I suspect those kind of dudes are in the tiny minority.

“I think our porn focused culture has tried to separate sexuality from intimacy, even to separate actual people, from the flat two dimensional images on a piece of paper, but in spite of all that, it is still intimacy, connection, closeness that motivates sexuality for both men and women.”

Pop culture is more guilty of the same thing, millions of women were duped into feeling intimacy, closeness, connection for dudes from Twilight or One Direction or Super Junior or whomever alpha dudes those women saw on screens & mags. Pop culture is actually much worse than porn because pop culture is celebrated and glorified

“Men however are much better at compartmentalizing and
therefore denying that fact, but I still believe it to be true.”

We are all entitled to our beliefs, I personally believe that in the year of our Lord 2112 the ancient Titans shall arise from their long slumber to clash with Jesus Christ and the Silver Surfer over dominion of our galaxy.

Overtaxed
Guest
Overtaxed
Offline

“Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce, the instinct has not died, it is only overwritten by cultural indoctrination.”

No. The desire to have sex is the desire to have an orgasm. The desire to have an orgasm comes from the chemical release that an orgasm provides. That’s it, full stop. If we ever discover a way to test this (by taking all the pleasure out of sex/orgasm) we will quickly discover that men no longer have an interest in sex. It’s not intimacy, it’s not closeness, it’s not the desire to have children. It’s the desire to have a bunch of hormones/chemicals bathing your brain that make you feel really, really good.

Equating the “desire to have children” with sex is like equating the “desire to become a drug addict” with someone using hard drugs for the first time. The vast majority of drug users are looking for the chemical release that drugs provide. A very small group are looking to throw their lives away and become drug addicts. Some of the vast majority will become addicts (fathers). However, they did not desire this outcome; what they wanted was the chemical feeling, not the possible results/side effects.

Birth control has broken the link for women. Male birth control will break the link for men. It’s as if we’ve discovered heroin that cannot possibly cause addiction, but still has all the positive side effects. And, because of that, birth rates are now dropping. And will continue dropping indefinitely until something fundamental changes.

GrampyBone
Guest
GrampyBone
Offline

The author basically doesn’t understand evolution. Natural selection doesn’t create “perfect” organisms, it creates “good enough” organisms. If humans are good enough to survive with a weak reproductive impulse–that’s easily distracted with other pursuits–then that’s good enough for evolution.

There have been societies which competed fiercely in more traditional darwinian “law of the jungle” ways: The Spartans. While their men were the pinnacle of human fitness, their destructive competition left them weak to outside attacks.

Humans have evolved a kind of “constructive competition,” where the survival aspects of natural selection are channeled for group benefit rather than personal. Nash’s equilibrium: whats good for the group is what’s good for the individual. Societies that find a balance between selfishness and altruism flourish, others die out.

Finally it’s ludicrous to assert that honesty is natural. Ask any parent, kids lie their asses off from the moment they can speak. Honesty has to be drilled into them with an iron fist.

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

“Honesty has to be drilled into them with an iron fist.”

I disagree. Children actually have to learn to lie. They learn how to lie from us. Before a certain developmental stage their brains aren’t even capable of holding two perceptions of reality at the same time, so their ability to ponder a false presentation of reality and then present it, is a skill they must develop.

What we “drill into them with an iron fist,” is a willingness to hold onto an ideal and value that the world does not reward. You want to win friends and influence people? Lie to them. You want to set yourself up for constant alienation and outrage? Speak the truth.

Bavieca
Guest
Bavieca
Offline

“You want to set yourself up for constant alienation and outrage? Speak the truth.”

Let alone the truth, men nowadays can’t even speak their opinions without risking verbal and or physical consequences.

Sally : So, Tom, whaddaya thunk of my friend Sally? She is a good girl and she kinda allow you to fancy her you know, teehee.

Tom : Well….. I’m not into her.

Sally : But why? She is such a good girl, are you gay or *GASP* hate women?

Tom : I’m straight and I love my mother so I don’t hate women.

Sally : Then why, why you’re not into her? Tell me why? I demand to know why!

Tom : Um….she’s sorta…..err……you know………fat?

Sally : OMG!! What a horrible thing to say!! How shallow can you be?? OMG!! You must have a tiny dick!!

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

Lol that happened to me last weekend.

Bavieca
Guest
Bavieca
Offline

OMG! It surely must have been, like, so totally and insanely creepy and gross! OMG!

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

I had a couple people ask me where things are going between me and the girl and I almost spat out my coffee. It’s amazing to me how low men have allowed their standards to drop, especially for LTR material.
For me a woman needs to at least be able to jump off the ground.

Truth
Guest
Truth
Offline

Since you are reading the Old Testment now, you will notice many of your questions answered. Especially in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. You will notice too, that God reveals Himself as the final meaning of life, the one that satisfies our most primal inner need of being truly loved. He builds an ever expanding alliance first with one man, then with one family, then with a tribe, then with a nation, then with a kingdom, and finally with Humankind (in the New Testament). All the alliances (execpt the last one) are broken when humans go against their inner purpose and adopt “parasitic behaviours” that clearly challenge the Truth revealed.

There is a reason why Christianity has grown from a tiny cult in middle east to a Global, civilization building force. Truth moves you with incredible power, it breaks the chains of the parasites that control you. The lives of Saints are the greatest rebuttal to Evolution. It cannot explain why the people who are role model to billions of humans are the ones that (mostly) did not reproduce at all.

temmy9 .
Guest
temmy9 .
Offline

Th only thing that matters is who has how many kids. We are still evolving. The future belongs to the Duggars, the Durka Durkas and the Africans.

Doctor Doctor
Guest
Doctor Doctor
Offline

At the moment it does seem that human evolution has reached a plateau. Our skills at sharing information and resources have minimized the impact of a “struggle for life” on the individual whereas other species face more constant threats from the wild. Presently, traits that we think should obviously lead to more surviving offspring, such as intelligence, do not produce this result. This is not necessarily counter to evolutionary theory, however, since it recognizes that evolutionary changes tend to occur in bursts (i.e. punctuated equilibrium). The old threats (starvation, the elements, predators, diseases) are not threatening us at the moment. If the earth’s temperature suddenly jumped 15 degrees or a highly communicable and deadly disease arises we might experienced a more pronounced period of selection.

No BS
Guest
No BS
Offline

The cultural marxist paradigm that we all live under in this era is not natural. It is, at its core, anti-nature and anti-human. Hence, it is not surprising that the results it produces (i.e. the fit do not reproduce) go against what the Theory of Evolution suggests should happen. These results, however, are produced through artificial intervention and are not naturally occurring.

Take away the cultural marxist control of the educational and media sectors of society and you would see society revert back to a more natural state consistent with Evolutionary Theory. Specifically, the “fit” would start having kids again.

Doctor Doctor
Guest
Doctor Doctor
Offline

Nobody wants to live in a society in a “natural state” where survival of the fittest is directly at play. Should we go back to drastically higher infant mortality, no modern medicine, no division of labor to efficiently produce goods including food etc.? If not, it’s inevitable that the “less fit” will prosper disproportionately.

No BS
Guest
No BS
Offline

So cultural marxist control of the media and educational sectors of society equals lower infant mortality, modern medicine, and a more efficient economy? Funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

Doctor Doctor
Guest
Doctor Doctor
Offline

Perhaps you should seek out a cultural marxist educator to help with your reading comprehension.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“Take away the cultural marxist control of the educational and media sectors of society and you would see society revert back to a more natural state consistent with Evolutionary Theory.”
——————-
Well, not exactly.
Take away the technology that keeps liberals alive to preach their liberal B.S. and then you would see society rapidly revert to a more ‘natural’ state.
(Note the quotes since what is a ‘natural’ anything? Urea is synthesized by the body. It can also be made in a lab. Are urea molecules synthesized in a lab made up of ‘artificial’ atoms? Plastic is carbon chemistry. So is biology. Why is one natural and the other not? It’s all ‘just so’ bullshit that has nothing to do with anything real.)
Liberalism is where mutants (the ugly, the weak, the dumb) that would otherwise not survive are kept alive by technology.
Eventually they come to outnumber the fit and when that happens they persecute the fit.
And upon reflection persecution of the fit really is what liberalism (and cultural Marxism) is all about.

oldfashionedfellow
Guest
oldfashionedfellow
Offline

If the origins of life, and all it encompasses, is explained through the processes of evolution, including that of humanity, why are the so-called “artificial interventions” of human beings rather conveniently excepted from the natural process that creates all life, including human beings and everything about them? How can anything be artificial, and not natural, if its the product of human action, and human beings are themselves wholly a product of natural processes?

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

I’ve been reading the comments and I’m happy to see how many intelligent followers Roosh has. Most of the people I talk to, my friends and coworkers, and the girls I date, don’t actually have any understanding of evolution. They think it’s just something somebody said one day, or that every monkey will eventually become intelligent over millions of years, and that every basic organism will evolve into a complex organism. They don’t get that it’s moments in time of being the most suitable to its environment and then being able to reproduce, spread over millions of years of random events. But most people here really do get it. I think that signifies the intelligence of your readership.

Something that’s always bothered me about living in North America is people’s inability for objectivity. It’s like the culture doesn’t teach people what being objective is. But people here make objective comments, objective observations, scientific observations, almost as if they were peer reviewed, or double blind executed. That’s why I like this community so much.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

How’s this for objective.
A new organ has never been proven to arise from evolution. Nor is there any good theory as to how a new organ can just pop into existence. And it all hinges on that. A freshwater fish can’t just swim into salt water and develop the organs to respirate, nor can it accidentally develop the organs to respirate in salt water and then swim into the ocean; the steelhead salmon is a total mystery.

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

I would think organs would evolve, the same way organisms evolve. Initially a new organ would be nothing more than a mutation of a normal organism, like liver hypertrophy for example. But over millions of years and billions of co-incidences, any mutation can give one member of a species an advantage in survival, and make it more likely for that organism to pass on its genes, thereby giving its offspring the same mutation (but not necessarily). So, to think that evolution is invalid because entire developed organs haven’t been proven to pop up as mutations in members of any species isn’t a valid argument in my opinion. A freshwater fish’s offspring may not have salt water gills as a mutation, but it may have the ability to reside in salt water one minute, or a few minutes more than its brothers and sisters. That one minute, over millions of years and billions of members of any species, could mean the survival of that fish with that particular mutation, and the death of some of the others in those same surroundings. If that fish gets to reproduce, chances that its offspring could also reside in salt water longer than its ancestors are also higher, and so on.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

You would like to think that organs evolve, yes, so would many others. Unfortunately, I would like to know, and you would like to think, and I am not satisfied with your lukewarm theory that is not supported by the math. How many species evolved over time and what is the mathematical rate and the probability given the number of modern species, and why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? AND you need to make this math work for the Cambrian Explosion.

Your theory simply doesn’t answer my questions and that doesn’t even address the philosophical aspects of it, which are worse.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

Sheeple on the right deny evolution but agree that men and women are naturally different.
Sheeple on the left deny that men and women are different but agree that evolution is real.
So I guess if you put half a right sheeple and half a left sheeple together you either get someone that makes perfect sense or one that makes no sense.

Jack
Guest
Jack
Offline

Contraception is novel, and a new selective pressure. As sex drives and procreation drives become decoupled, those with the highest desire to procreate will be the ones having children, and will thus be the “fittest” from a Darwinian perspective.

André
Guest
André
Offline

Exactly. Replication has nothing to do with being the strongest or the most intelligent, or most ressourceful.. those genes that creates the greatest desire for having children are the ones that will survive to the next generation. If let’s say 60 percent have more than 2 children, that is a form of selection right there. Genes that create bodies that are more interested in wealth than in children arr bound to die.

I disagree with roosh, for the first time in a very long time.

There are no “good” genes.. No strong genes.. The only good genes are the ones who create bodies that want to have children (in this certain environment we are living in right now, hunting for wealth and status and never having children are “bad” genes, no matter how sofisticated a body and brain they are in..

There is no striving for perfection in evolution. There are only those genes which happens to create behavior that happens to get more offspring than other allelles..

While i do not think that darwins evolution is totally up to speed, i would suggest anyone interested in evolution to read “the mating mind” by geoffrey miller.

He explains that striving for wealth and status and creative intelligence is all a show off, of a low mutational rate in the genome, and thereby, better chances of survival.
The code for the brain takes up more than 50 percent of the genome. Thereby, a brain that is healthy, symmetric and can create beautiful language and get power will be an indicator of a low mutational / error rate in 50 percent of the genome.. And thereby, selecting a mate with a large healthy brain would get you off spring with fewer mutations, and thereby better chances of surviving to adulthood..

It’s the same with testosterone. It is an immunosurpressor, therefor, signs og high testosterone is an indicator of a very healthy immunesystem.. And females will always be attracted to good immunesystems..

So evolution can explain many of our behaviors..

But evolution will by default always make individuals that are not so well adapted. And those with no desire for children, are very badly adapted for this certain environment we are in today. Had those same individuals been living during a time of famine or starvation or winter, maybe the desire to not have many children would make those few children survive into adulthood, instead of having ti take care of 10..

Those who are poor but get way more genes into the next generation than the rich, are by evolutionary terms “better” and more fit..

Fit are those who happens to put most surviving and reproducing offspring into the world. Even if they seem “unfit”.. Because evolution has no purpose.. And if there is an idea going on in the brains of people that they shouldn’t reproduce, then those brains who hold on to that idea just happens to be badly fitted for that environment which contains that idea of not reproducing..

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“There is no striving for perfection in evolution.”
————–
Agreed. The closest thing is a kind of chipping off of the edges that stops the moment the environment changes.

incognitoperson
Guest
incognitoperson
Offline

Blacks and Muslims are taking over

Feminized populations are going extinct

Evolution continues

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Without natural selection, and with the most educated, stable, intelligent choosing to have fewer children or none at all, while the lower classes breed away, isn’t it possible that humanity will actually devolve into a lesser state over time? This is the theme to Idiocracy, and I don’t see how it’s wrong.

With democracy, the proclivity for social devolution is encouraged. Consider the “Debate American Style” video which documents the first all female all minority debate team winning the national championship by frantically screaming “nigga, queer, whitey, shit” and jumping around like an animal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

Whereas systems with social tiers, especially under monarchy or some type of Platonic Republic, establishes some sort of separation between different classes, and would never allow, for example, a slutty Kim Kardashian to dominate the entertainment industry, Democracy is based on the idea that there is equality for all, and that the voice of the next ghettho welfare child that pops out has exactly the same voice, influence, and share of societal wealth that you, as an educated, rational, hard working, independent man from a good background have. And then when that same teen mother pops out kids 2, 3, 4, and 5, your voice and influence is further diluted.

Why is there evolution? The world constantly changes. Changes in environments, weather, climate, population levels (both local and global) are constantly in flux. If organisms could not readily adapt to changes, they would be at far greater risk of dying out. But I think the deeper question you are getting at is why does life struggle to continue? Is there some greater consciousness or undiscovered connection between all living organisms? Why may not know the why, but observation of science shows us that life DOES struggle to succeed at all costs. If it did not, there would be no life in the first place.

The section on genes being stupid and unable to recognize relatives is insightful. Not only could parents not identify their own children, but if one meets an attractive first cousin for the first time, there would be no genetic warnings to stop this evolutionarily destructive attraction. Perhaps evolution only works for the lower species where “spawning at all costs” is a biological goal. That is not a goal, as so eloquently stated in this article, of humans today.

The question of “correct sex roles” cannot be easily answered. For what is the goal? The highest raw number of offspring? A stable society, with neither marked gains or losses in population levels? Economically stable family units? A population most conducive to civilization and technological and societal progress? Each of these answers would require markedly different ideal sex roles.

This article seems to successfully debunk evolution as an explanation for modern human behavior. However, there are still components of evolutionary theory that ring true. For example, consider “Exponential growth in female preference”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Exponential_growth_in_female_preference


In species where intersexual selection is active, as in many polygamous birds, sexual selection acts by accelerating the preference that specific “fashion” ornaments attract, causing the preferred trait and female preference for it to increase together, explosively…plumage development in the male, and sexual preference for such developments in the female, must thus advance together, and so long as the process is unchecked by severe counterselection, will advance with ever-increasing speed. In the total absence of such checks, it is easy to see that the speed of development will be proportional to the development already attained, which will therefore increase with time exponentially

Does this not partially explain the levels of clown game needed, and the development of Caitlin Jenner, driven by today’s female desires?

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

I’ve thought about this at length.

To overcome a woman’s attraction threshold you need to, as a man, compete not only with other men… but with the government, the images women see on TV, the cultural context, etc.

This is why I don’t really put too much stock in the idea that one man is more “alpha” than another. Heartiste’s definition that alpha = the guy women want to fuck, is really the best one because it doesn’t judge the men in question in terms of their character or true value. You could have a brilliant scientist like Tesla single-handedly solve many of the world’s technological limitations, but he isn’t sexay because he doesn’t fit into the social mould that women are exposed to on a daily basis. If you change the culture or social environment however, and put him in a place where intelligence is valued, he all the sudden would become “alpha” would he not (assuming he isn’t utterly lacking in other areas)?

I say this because in degenerate cultures, it’s the guy with the drugs that gets the most ass. In more developed cultures, it’s the brilliant and handsome man who gets the most ass. In wartime, it’s the strongest man who gets the most ass, etc. Society dictates what is valuable, and women are only concerned with securing a man that is deemed valuable in that particular social environment.

What this means for men today is that they have to become caricatures rather than authentic human beings, and Roosh has touched on this before. Either that or you have to be incredibly smart or lucky and find a unicorn.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Ah, thanks for crystalizing that. Now the whole “alpha” label makes sense to me.

So if our culture is one that rewards the degenerate, physically defiled, culturally ignorant, intellectually weak, morally bereft with ass, it is clear what our society values and what it does not. Is there any hope for the west? At all?

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

Iunno man… Things are getting pretty weird…
One thing I hope to see is more liberals realize how out of control things have gotten.

You said you are/used to be a liberal. I used to be a liberal as well until I spent enough time around liberals in the academic sphere. Frankly I’ve developed more respect for the working man in the last couple years and it seems they tend to be more conservative on average; they have more respect for the meaning of hard work.

I’ve noticed a couple buddies of mine who are staunchly liberal start to come out to question this whole SJW thing. I just don’t think they realized how whacky some of this stuff can get but it’s becoming more and more obvious everyday that we’re not dealing with rational thinkers. We’re breeding a generation of fools.

Jack
Guest
Jack
Offline

“because any set of conditions that put humans through an evolutionary grinder are no longer present in modern civilization. ”

Contraception and childless sex is an evolutionary grinder. In that sense, being a sexual success and being an evolutionary success are becoming more and more mutually exclusive.

Its similar to the hyperconsumption of fats and sugars, which once had an evolutionary purpose, but now reduces fitness, both evolutionary and physical.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

A bird in the wild suffers no real loss to its quality of life by having baby birds. Sure, it has to collect a few more worms, but what the hell else is it going to do? A human (in the context of a family) suffers a very real hit to wallet, lifestyle, hobbies, and time by having children. Now if you just hit it and quit it, impregnate a girl and then disappear, maybe not so much, but then what would be the benefit to doing that at all? And then if you are ever caught, there are back years of child support.

Jack
Guest
Jack
Offline

right, and there’s the rub… personal loss of money and free time is an evolutionary gain.

The difference between ours and past evolutionary grinders is it now is pleasurable. Whereas in the past being an evolutionary failure meant you likely lived in celibacy and poverty, now it can mean lots of sex and shekels.

Zuikurkler Yamizangthang
Guest
Zuikurkler Yamizangthang
Offline

Life is a paradox.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

This review debunks it all:

David Stove has fallen into an old trap of thinking. From the start, it is clear that Stove think that natural selection is about death and brutal competition. This is a common misconception, stemming from the poorly chosen phrase “survival of the fittest”. Natural Selection is about differential reproductive success. Obviously if one dies young before reproducing, that affects long term reproductive success, but it is not the only means by which differential reproduction occurs. For example, if a trait allows one to simply have more children than those without it, in the long run, those with the trait, could out-compete those without it. Simply by out-reproducing the others.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

Evolution is just simple enough for the person of average intelligence to understand it clearly if they choose to and just complex enough for a person of average intelligence to totally misunderstand it ….. IF they choose to.
Almost everyone that challenges it turns out to be of the latter camp.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings?

Sex without the end goal of conceiving, asexuality and homosexuality are explained by the theory which claims that in urban areas with dense population, some people choose (consciously or subconsciously) not to reproduce in order to reduce the population density.

Which fits perfectly with evolution as it favours the improvement of the species as a whole over the fate of a certain individual.

Boz
Guest
Boz
Offline

Biological information and inheritance (DNA) and extra-biological information and inheritance (culture) are distinct and irreducible though interdependent systems in constant dynamic interaction. Culture is an emergent phenomena of biology, but not reducible to it.

And that’s why reductive biological explanations fail to take account of many of the phenomena that you point out, Roosh.

We need a better theory that understands this distinction.

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

Just one last note, this will be my last comment on this post, I promise. I want to explain the correct definition for what an atheist is. Roosh, you for example, say you don’t believe in a God, but you don’t call yourself an atheist. Let’s have a look at the word atheist for a moment. What’s another word for religion? Theism. Do you follow any of the world’s religions? No, you don’t follow Christianity, Buddhism, Judaïsm, you’re not a Hindu or a Muslim. Therefore you are not religious. This means you are non-religious, or a-religious. Since “theism” is another word for religion, and you are a-religious, you are therefore a-theistic, or an atheist.

It’s a strange thing how America makes up its own definitions of things. This idea that the majority of Americans has about “atheists” not believing in anything and judging all religions and not having any moral code or principles etcetera has nothing what so ever to do with what being an atheist actually means. It simply means not following any of the world’s mainstream religions. But of course, in America, if you call yourself an atheist, then you won’t get hired for jobs, nobody will marry you and you’ll pretty much be stigmatized and be a loser as a result, so even though a huge section of the population is actually atheist (as in a-religious), most people are deathly afraid to call themselves atheist, because of the wrong definiton that the majority of the population believes.

This, again, comes down to a North American culturel lack of objectivity, which I’ve complained about in the comments on this post before.

BernieGoetzFan
Guest
BernieGoetzFan
Offline

I think you are reading too much into it. Most people – at least in the US – take an atheist as someone who simply does not believe in God. I have been an atheist for all my adult life and have hardly even received a raised eyebrow, let alone lost a job or a friend.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

No. An atheist is someone who rejects theism. Not deism. Not Buddhism. Not paganism. Not witchcraft. Not animalism, gaia, or ancestor worship. He rejects theism. He points at “those people over there, those dumb ass Christians Muslims and Jews.” and says “I’m not one of them.”

His interlocutor asks, “Well, who are you then?”

The Atheist must respond, “Not one of them dumb asses over there. That’s for sure.”

Atheism is dependent on the existence of theism. Any attempts to make up your own values and morals is nothing more than doing what you claim theists do: make up gods, religions, morals, and values to control the population.

Call yourself non-religious. Or humanist. That would be more accurate and helpful to those who want to know what you’re for, instead of what you’re childishly stamping your little feet against..

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

From dictionary.com:theism

[thee-iz-uh m]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, withoutrejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

So, if you don’t believe in a god or gods, you are a-theistic.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Listen bro, I spent the last 10 years in Oregon. Hippies. Gaia. PETA. Buddhists. Pagans. Totem animals. Witchcraft. Parapsychology. UFOs. Bigfoot. One girl has ancestral tattoos. All of them claiming to be atheists. All of them practicing no religion, observing no gods.

That meets the definition of atheist. They have no religion or gods. They believe in spirits, powers, mysteries, and the metaphysical.

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

I don’t really see how any of that is relevant. All I’m saying is: Roosh does not believe in a god, therefore he is a-theistic, according to the dictionary’s definition, but still he won’t identify as an atheist, like so many Americans who are afraid to call themselves such because they think it will stigmatize them in society. And it does. My relative in Fresno, California, is an engineer and manager for an electrical company, and he told me: “I would never hire an atheist.”, now are you going to tell me, that if a regular dude in Fresno, an engineer, who is by the way pretty darn representative of the Californian population, makes that statement, that there are not millions more in the Bible belt that would rather die than hire or marry an atheist? All I’m saying is that millions of Americans are closet atheists, because they’re afraid to use the word, afraid to be labeled and to be outcast, especially in the deep south.

Greg Krehbiel
Guest

Good article, but isn’t the issue relatively simple — that evolution created who we are today, but another process is now taking over? And isn’t the reason pretty obvious — that while in the past “sex drive” correlated directly with “make babies,” it doesn’t anymore?

Molnár András
Guest
Molnár András
Offline

I feel Roosh you think too much of evolution=reproduction. Also, Darwin never said that the “strongest” and most “fit” survive, he said the most adaptable. It is a common misconception.

Darwin proved evolution on animals, in natural settings. But man is the kind of animal who changes its environment, on a scale that makes the natural evolutionary process

moot. It could easily be that the current civilization will be an evolutionary dead end, a maladaptation. It’s worth remembering, that history is under no obligation to give us the future we think we want.

Ke
Guest
Ke
Offline

Right. To expand on your point, it’s worth noting that human history itself is very short, a blink of an eye in terms of natural history.

The virtuous cycle of advanced social behaviors and technological processes that gave rise to civilization occurred only 10 to 12 thousand years ago. That’s less than 500 generations.

Hadown
Guest
Hadown
Offline
Gokus-penson
Guest
Gokus-penson
Offline

How to increas our Acount balance with rooshv … kEEP READING

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I am a creationist and I understand evolution better than almost every evolutionist I’ve ever met. So let me share something simple with you.

You cannot ascribe teleology to evolution. There are no mal adaptations. Nothing in the evolutionists cosmos cares about adaptations, or even survival. The evolutionary cosmos is random, chaotic, unordered, temporary, shifting, aimless, meaningless. The whole cosmos is. The whole cosmos must.

Therefore there is no natural evolutionary process. There is no moot. There is nothing that won’t change, won’t evolve. Evolution must evolve. Reason can evolve. Or devolve. Even the word devolution implies teleology.

Evolution just is.

Everything that is is evolution.

Period full stop.

Nonsense I say.

rogaine
Guest
rogaine
Offline

How to earn money with ———- rooshv … ➨➨➨ kEEP READING

koseph Finn
Guest
koseph Finn
Offline

it’s very Easy with rooshv … kEEP READING

Melissa Gandarinho
Guest
Melissa Gandarinho
Offline

How to earn money with rooshv … kEEP READING

WadeABillington
Guest
WadeABillington
Offline

Your first choice rooshv Find Here

Visionquest
Guest
Visionquest
Offline

Good article Roosh. And I’d like to point out that children born today are a result of a broken condom, ineffective birth control pill or simply a reckless one night stand.

Not great way to start out life – how does that make anyone feel knowing that they were born because they were an accident!

Cameron Pritchard
Guest
Cameron Pritchard
Offline

Substitute the idea that the “will to reproduce” as the driving force/motivator, albeit perhaps unconsciously, and replace it with the “will to power,” the result is interesting. Using this latter notion to explain human motivation, I think a lot of the apparent contradiction between modern human behavior in our late capitalist state and evolutionary theory will be resolved. Reproduction is one manifestation of the will to power – the dominant or perhaps the only one for organisms other than humans. However, humans with their advanced frontal lobes have “evolved” beyond their animal counterparts in terms of how the will to power may manifest itself. The point, if one insists on using teleological language, is “growth,” in the abstract. Reproduction/cloning yourself is one possible course of action. We need to think about how these altruistic behaviors etc can be recast and understood not as a repudiation of evolutionary theory, but rather an extension of it, if personal or collective growth is taken on in this thought experiment, and not reduce everything to reproduction/cum shots.

There is a lot of difficulty here: the opposition between individual and collective action; the conflict between goal-directed language that we can’t seem to help using and the constant reiteration that evolution, properly understood, eschews goal directed or teleological thinking; the conflict between biology and then socio-biology (the latter making much more dubious prescriptive claims than the first; and then the ultimate age-old battle between free-will and determinism (the puppet master is nothing other than the lion of determinism).

Roosh seems to be rejecting biological determinism – or determinism in all its forms – and for that, I tip my hat. In this way, he seems to be joining a long line of existentialist thinkers. The will to power as described previously, is the mind-child of one such thinker, Nietzsche. I have no particular attachment to any of his ideas, but rather merely am presenting this as food for thought.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew
Offline

There’s actually a more simple explanation that does not contradict Darwin’s Theory: human consciousness is not an adaptive advantage in this world, or has ceased to be.

Krum
Guest
Krum
Offline

U G Krishnamurti says that thinking is a neurological defect or a mutation that might cost us dearly in the end.

Thinking people tend to have less children.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Ian Johnstone, an evolutionist, argues that believing in the theory of evolution is a threat to human survival.

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/darwin.htm

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

This is one I will agree with as a creationist.
If evolution is true, the human is a sad cosmic joke parading as the world’s master, the most wise and wonderful master in all the horrific cold dead universe.

To wit: If evolution is true, kill yourself.

Week of Rodanne
Guest
Week of Rodanne
Offline

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, plain and simple. Natural selection has nothing to do with the members of a species with the greatest amount of resources/abilities having the most offspring. Individuals that survive and reproduce pass on their traits to the next generation, which will continue to be passed on so long as those traits do not hinder future generations ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, the people you speak of in low income neighborhoods that have more offspring than they can afford are in a way the most fit individuals for the current welfare state environment, as not being able to afford children does not hinder your ability to reproduce, others just end up paying for them. You could certainly make an argument for this being bad for society as a whole, but natural selection is working exactly as it is supposed to; individuals who are able to most efficiently use their environment to survive and reproduce pass on those traits and behaviors.

Jacob Donohoe
Guest
Jacob Donohoe
Offline

Tbh, I don’t think there’s any girl out there worthy of my seed in today’s climate

It’s a controlled and conscious choice, which is quite peculiar no? that until I find a girl decent enough physically, emotionally etc I won’t impregnate any others in the meantime. It would be too much of a biological risk. Likely careerism in women, and general loss of classic nurturing traits have driven me to this point.

Evolution is kewl
Guest
Evolution is kewl
Offline

Evolution does apply. Here is a logical argument as to why and where your argument fails.

Humans are not adapted to the modern environment. The environment has changed significantly over the past hundred years. As such, there are several maladaptive traits humans have for this environment that would have been useful in a past environment.

You have not produced children due to contraception.Your urge is satisfied when you have sex and not when you have babies; as such the invention of contraception effectively reduced the amount of children you produced from 100 billion or however much sex you’ve had to 0, or 1 or 2 should that ever happen.

Evolution has not yet caught up to all these changes. Yet… it still applies because it gives a framework for understanding what traits and behaviours WOULD be effective. This is the basis of all game.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Why only pick his arguments for the modern environment? He gave arguments regarding the ancestral environment too.

Not good enough.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Offline

“You have not produced children due to contraception.”

My ‘contraception’ is the pullout method. So the modern invention of contraception does not impact me at all, and yet I pull out diligently and without hesitation. The pullout method has been in use for thousands of years. The fact that I can even do this consistently, you’d think, would have gotten weeded out generations ago.

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

That’s a bit worrying. There is such a thing as pre-ejaculate that can quite easily impregnate a female, even if you pull out when the ejaculation is about to come. Have you been tested for sperm fertility or sperm count? If you’ve slept with this many women and you’ve always pulled out, statistically your pre-ejaculate should have made quite a many of them pregnant if you had normal sperm count and fertility. I don’t mean any offense but it may be a good idea to get a simple test done, that way at least you know. I pulled out once on a Hungarian girl in Hungary, and even though I did it correctly, she still got pregnant, and had an abortion. This is 10 years ago but still, just trying to make a point here.

kanaq82
Guest
kanaq82
Offline

Pre ejaculate itself does not contain sperm.
Pre ejaculate can, however, pick up sperm leftover in the urethra from a previous ejaculation. That’s how pregnancy from pre-ejaculate happens.
For example, if you ejaculate, then urinated a couple times. odds are your urethra would be cleaned out and thus the next pre-cum would not have sperm in it.

pre ejaculate in itself does not contain sperm, it can only pick up strands of sperm leftover in your urethra

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

Yes, sure, but if you think of how many women Roosh has had condomless sex with, I still think that statistically he should have knocked at least a few girls up by accident.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

“Evolution does apply. Here is a logical argument as to why and where your argument fails. Humans are not adapted to the modern environment.”
i.e. Evolution does not apply to modern humans. The very title of the freaking blog post.

practicallyperfect
Guest
practicallyperfect
Offline

It is for thought provoking insights like this I appreciate the men of the manosphere. Lately I’ve wondered if we had it wrong with regards towards reproduction. Perhaps we should be encouraging only those who feel an intense drive or need to reproduce to do so, and the rest… I’m not sure about.

Tamas
Guest
Tamas
Offline

There is also an evolution of ideas (social order, religion, weapons, technology) paralell to the biological evolution. When you have an offspring its not just your genes you pass on but also basic heuristics from how to build and use an axe to how to start a cult. When you are Isaac Newton its not the reproduction of biological genes you are passing on but your legacy is a cornerstone of physics and technology, and those “idea genes” will be credited to you for a long time.

This explains modern society, technology and even feminism well and it is only a small addition to basic darwinian evolution. There is a limited amount of brain capacity for humans and those ideas compete ferociously to survive and propagate themselves to other humans. If you consider the idea and biological genes competing at the same time a lot of the book’s arguments fall apart like a house of cards.

General Stalin
Guest
General Stalin
Offline

This author’s interpretation of the theory of evolution is a little flawed, which I think in turn is clouding your judgment about it. Many people before my comment hasv explained this so I won’t go on about it, but I will add this:

Humans have beat survival. We are the top of the food chain totem pole by a HUGE margin. There is no biologically urgent need for us to increase our numbers to survive as a species. Seagulls aren’t picking off our babies by the thousands as they crawl their way across the beach, if you catch my drift. Sharks aren’t picking us off as we dive off the ice berg to eat some herring. We are living in complete biological prosperity – hell over half of the USA is overweight because we have such an abundance of resources that we haven’t even properly developed a way for our bodies to deal with it. If anything we need a form of population control – which is where contraception and abortion come in. China actually has federal regulations put in place to limit population growth. You think India and China have issues reproducing?

This mass anti-reproduction is almost exclusively a phenomenon of the Western World. Brought on completely by cultural and social conditioning. If you read over the history of birth control – it only became a mainstream and wide-spread topic in the 20th century, and it started in Western Europe (Britain). The baby-free sex is a trend of the last 100 years. I would venture to say the pursuit of sexual intercourse without resulting in reproduction is simply a human social construct. Can it be called “natural” or “unnatural” that we gravitate towards this? Is it “natural” or “unnatural” that we glorify perceived degeneracy while shaming and demonizing traditional views of masculinity and social dynamics?

I do know one thing; the time line of contraception and women’s suffrage started around the same time and progressed parallel to one another. All tropes of progressivism – to which no one knows the endgame.

Libertas
Guest
Libertas
Offline

“Humans have beat survival. We are the top of the food chain totem pole by a HUGE margin.”

This is a highlight of why I suggested that Roosh look at some of Hagens’ work. He makes a few key points that are almost stupefying – when you look at the combined weight of humanity, we outweigh every other species on planet earth. BY FAR.

The second point he makes is that we have an obscene amount of energy available to us beyond what our bodies naturally burn. Whereas most organisms have to struggle just to get enough energy to make a living, we have available to us an energy supply that it makes us for all intents and purposes gods. One barrel of oil alone is about 11 years worth of human labor in terms of energy content.

This has allowed us to segue into his third point – we use about 40% of the combined resources on the planet available to all life, and that number is increasing rapidly.

And even before the industrial revolution, agriculture basically ensured our ascendancy to imperial masters of life on earth (again, an easily available energy source when you get to the barebones). We are so overwhelmingly dominant as a species that we can and are doing with the entire planet what we wish.

Even with the problems of resource depletion (which will limit our population growth unless something changes), this fact isn’t going to change. Survival is simply not a concern for us as a species anymore. We might even be able to get out of a KT-like event intact, though obviously many billions would die.

Kevin Lauder
Guest
Kevin Lauder
Offline

Evolution works over large populations over long periods of time. Specifically on those without our complex social structures that play a role in controlling our reproduction. We are the only beings with culture. We have effectively evolved beyond the confines of genetic selection. Just like we have done for various species of domesticated animals.

Evolution has no way of predicting the future and seeing the consequences of intelligence. It is merely a result of certain organisms surviving and others not.

Being a hunter gatherer selects for powerful brain that can develop models of the world around us. This has consequences on our abilities in other contexts.

We have essentially grown out of natural selection. So I agree that evolution doesn’t account for human beings without taking culture into consideration.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

“We have effectively evolved beyond the confines of genetic selection”

In other words, we have effectively been genetically selected beyond genetic selection.

Makes perfect sense.

Kevin Lauder
Guest
Kevin Lauder
Offline

Correction. We have selected ourselves out of natural selection.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

We broke evolution.
We have become God.

Kevin Lauder
Guest
Kevin Lauder
Offline

Bingo.

Kevin Lauder
Guest
Kevin Lauder
Offline

TL;DR Our brains and culture allow us to change faster than just the effects of evolution.

KB
Guest
KB
Offline

This scene from the movie “Idiocracy” sums it up well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

This movie gets less and less funny each year.
It was only funny when it was ironic.

Hank
Guest
Hank
Offline

I wish this article would’ve made comparisons with (or at least mentioned) the behaviors of the mice in John Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments. These experiments suggest that social species may be unable to cope with rapid social change and therefore die out. In other words, they actually aren’t fit at all despite how they may seem at first glance, and so they die out as evolutionary theory predicts.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

So evolution has failed to program them to survive in those rapidly changing social conditions. Great theory. I’ve also heard that fish fail to survive when taken out of water. Evolution predicts that with fish, too.

John Calhoun’s experiment, like most of science and biology, have nothing to say or do with the theory of evolution. Almost everything carried out by science and biology can be continued if you were able to press a button and delete the theory of evolution from humankind’s mind.

Mik
Guest
Mik
Offline

Nature is dirty. The “paper alpha” doesn’t seduce the girl no matter how logically deserving he appears… unless he busts a move. The “paper patriarch” doesn’t reproduce like a Mongol king… unless he actually busts a move. Your plan to sire 100s of kids: sounds great! So do it! If you do not, it’s merely an ego exercise: you lack the requisite fitness in deed, like the paper alpha who won’t approach a girl. What is it, holding you back? Whatever ‘it’ is – that is why you are unfit, plain and simple.

Endless sex without reproduction is like endless eating without concern for health: unfit gluttony. Natural selection is still going on… and the sex gluttons with 100s of partners and no children are still failing at something relevant to human fitness – regardless of their pick-up acumen or standard of Western living. I don’t know what that ‘something’ is: perhaps they are paralyzed by selfishness, have self-loathing about certain qualities of their being or selves which they do not want to reproduce, or lack the paternal capacity to ensure any children themselves can survive and thrive. Even a nanny state is insufficient to guarantee your 100 bastards are not mainly dead-ends themselves (or nuked by a non-nanny state). One reliable way to ensure your children are not dead-ends is to take some oversight in fathering them yourself.

Rich or poor, player or putz, the risk to sire children is still real – a type of natural risk-taking which is being selected for right now… evolution at work.

Blaster
Guest
Blaster
Offline

Evolution says “species change over time.” Evolution does not say that every individual organism always tries to have as many children as possible, except maybe when food is scarce.

Evolution does explain a general drive for individuals to pass on genes, in that organisms that don’t bother to pass on their genes will die out. But it doesn’t predict exactly how this will manifest in every species. Humans, clearly, seem to possess some degree of drive to propagate in every individual. And while some people are less likely to breed than others, humans are the most numerous non-rodent mammal on the planet by orders of magnitude so I think they’re doing a pretty good job. But there’s plenty of room for individual organisms to not have any individual incentive to pass on their personal genes. Female worker bees are an obvious example. Only queens and drones breed. Worker bees just work for the benefit of the queen. There are similar, more subtle dynamics in species like wolves, where, when in a pack situation, only the alpha male breeds with the alpha female while the rest of the pack does not breed at all.

> When evolutionists discuss altruism

When evolutionists discuss altruism, the first thing they do is define altruism precisely and as it relates to a species rather than an invidual, because evolution is about the change in species over time not about the invidual behavior of a specific organism at a single point in time.

They exclude what you describe as “altruism” from “true altruism” in two ways: First, it does not count behavior that is more accurately described as mutually beneficial. A great deal of human social activity is mutually beneficial rather than strictly altruistic. Second, is that behavior that is altruistic from an inividual perspective but beneficial to genetic reatives, especially close genetic relatives like family and friends, also does not count for the purposes of evolution. Even if you don’t personally have children, your close genetic relatives did and your species did in general, and so your species survived and still exists today– which is the main thing evolution explains.

> Say you encounter an article …

The flaw here is not Evolution, rather the design of the test. It’s this scenario itself that is unfalsifiable due to the vagueness of the definitions. What is “war”? Why is “going to war” assumed to demonstrate genetic fitness or aphaness? Why are the genetic consequences of your population being conquered or wiped out not considered? Who are the men in each scenario breeding with? Are the men who go to war breeding with a local, foreign population or did they breed with their wives back home before they left or after they got back? Why does this scenario have to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t there be some scenarios where men who go off to war have more children, and some scenarios where men who stay home have more children? Both scenarios are obviously possible. Again this points to a problem with the design of the test, not Evolution.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Species change over time is not the definition of evolution, nor is it special or unique to evolutionists, nor do you need to understand evolution to know that species change over time, nor does the fact that species change over time imply evolution.
Species change over time. Utterly fucking useless, dude. Wow, so impressed.

Blaster
Guest
Blaster
Offline

Yes, it is. That is the fundamental premise of evolution. Any argument against evolution that does not at least recognize this is inevitably going to be a straw man.

More precisely, evolution is the theory that the diversity of life that we observe on the planet today and the evidence of life that has lived in the past can be explained by some mechanisms of heredity. Yes, “species change over time” is using very simple words, but it’s succinct and correct.

And no, it’s not “fucking useless” lol. It’s the whole goddamn point. One of the most fundamental things that evolution predicts is that you will never find a species “out of order.” That is, you’ll never find a fossil of a human that existed before the dinosaurs, because no species had changed into humans yet. That definition of evolution is falsifiable, and yields falsifiable hypotheses and ultimately has predictive value.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

The fundamental premise of evolution is that all creatures came from a common ancestor via a natural process whereby organisms develop more and more complex organs.

The “complex process” is unknown and unobserved, and as posited in its numerous forms not logical nor mathematically likely.

Davis M.J. Aurini
Guest

Have you read “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics”? I think it might contain the answer you’re looking for – the author splits a Gordian Knot that’s been tearing at evolutionary theory for almost a century.

First off, I think it’s important that Evolution is more like strategy than science. Even woo-woo sciences like climatology (which run into problems of chaos theory, making them easily manipulable by political ideas) ultimately boil down to measurable physical causes. There might be a dozen other factors to consider when raising the CO2 rates (the positive-feedback of having more trees, the effects on cloud formation, the prevalence of particulates in the air from volcanic erruptions and their interaction with this gas) but – hypothetically – you could create a model that predicts what would happen if CO2 rates went from X to X+Y.

Strategy – unlike science – is games within games within games. This is why, in books like Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” nearly ever law comes with a reversal; deception and honestly go hand in hand. Strategy fails at being predictive – when studying examples of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, researchers are able to explain *in retrospect* what the best strategy was, but they’re unable to predict that strategy before hand – and even then, their explanations of the ‘best’ strategy are merely probabilistic, a single black swan (a competitor who’s a psychopath, for example) can utterly skew any single iteration.

Evolution – by its very nature – can *never* be predictive with absolute certainty. We can make guesses about what will happen to finch’s beaks, but we can never be certain. This is why evolution will sometimes propose opposite explanations. *Sometimes* the cowards outbreed the warriors; other times the warriors outbreed the cowards. The physical factors (food availability, environment) inform these outcomes, but they’re couched in recursive spirals of deception and strategy.

Enter the Gordian Knot that I mentioned above: group selection. For the past century this has been an albatross on evolutionary theory. On the one hand, every theory of altruism (an observable fact) demands some sort of group selection; on the other, it’s obvious that the selfish gene theory completely precludes group selection. The author of “Evolutionary Theory” creates a solution, informed by his own understanding of strategy and game theory.

Who is the most direct competitor of the gazelle? The lion, or fellow gazelles? That’s the sort of wrong-question that science has been asking, turning it into an either-or. The answer is both; that there are two strategies that gazelle can adapt, one is a fitness strategy to out-compete the lion, the other is a reproductvie strategy to out-breed the other gazelles. Following up on this, there a recursive behaviours within the gazelle tribe. Too much cheating (r-strategy) hurts everybody, but too much K-strategy hurts them as a whole. As a community, they’ll develop signalling-mechanisms to punish r-type outliers, while still permitting a baseline of r-type that avoids falling prey to the signalling.

The use of prophylactics in humans takes on traits of both r and K type strategies. It’s K to the extent that it signals “I’m an ideal partner, since I’m responsible enough to have safe-sex”; it’s r to the extent that it states “I’m not invested in quality of offspring, I’m metaphorically abandoning them at the orphanage”.

The proof of his theory is in its application; strategy can never explain to the ignoramus what they should do at any given time (any more than you can truly explain the right time to neg a girl to somebody who doesn’t understand the mythical core underlying game), but once you understand strategy to the core you can begin applying all of this. His theory will never be predictable in a quantifiable, scientific manner – but when you put it into application, you will see tremendous results any time you argue with Liberals (the politics of the r-type); it gives you avenues for out-manoeuvring them, and putting them into a self-destructive tail-spin.

These are meta-scientific concepts; meta-magical even. The repeating, fractal-like patterns of strategy that occur in war, politics, and the evolution of the species. Meta-concepts can never be objectively predictable the way science wants knowledge to be (a pretence of the 17th century’s clockwork universe – that crude logic is sufficient to understand the universe). So in this sense, Evolution was never a ‘true’ scientific theory – but it has a deeper truth to it, if you know where to look.

Mark Boris
Guest
Mark Boris
Offline

Oh Roosh, Roosh, Roosh. I am sorry for you. You don’t believe in God and you don’t believe in evolution. Yet you still recognize the need for meaning and realize you can’t get it from ejaculating inside a woman. You are truly lost. I’d be willing to bet you don’t find what you’re looking for for a very long time.

(Source: “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until we rest in you.” –Some Guy)

Marshallaw
Guest
Marshallaw
Offline

I never ejaculate inside a woman. Usually I’ll pull out just before I get the urge and blow my muck on her face/tits. The ladies love it, yes they do…

Quintus Curtius
Guest

Interesting article. I think it would be a mistake for anyone to try to use evolutionary theories to explain his or her own life. This is because evolutionary processes take place over vast spans of time. Evolution concerns itself with the life of the species, not the life of the individual.
An individual man may not reproduce, but someone somewhere else will. Modern Western society may be hostile to healthy family formation, but people will breed nonetheless. The fertility of the simple and the poor will always outpace that of the solitary thinker.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Quite true. And indeed even with trends such as MGTOW, delay of marriage, number of single people at an all time high, divorce rape, etc., still, go out and you see babies and families everywhere. Perhaps there is not such a strong biological drive to reproduce simply because it is not needed. Someone somewhere else is doing it, probably earlier and more frequently than you ever considered. The population continues to expand rapidly. So a line of homo sapiens may continue. The question is, what will their society look like in the future?

Tom Arrow
Guest
Tom Arrow
Offline

i propose the perspective that it is the intelligent man who refuses to adapt to the masses instead of the masses refusing to adapt to the intelligent man. maybe the intelligent man is simply he who recognizes that making children is not that good a choice for himself, himself being more rewarded by intellectual pursuits and self-development perhaps.

EvoIsWhatItIs
Guest
EvoIsWhatItIs
Offline

“Survival of the fittest”
The definition of fittest does not mean most strong, resourcesfull or being able to fuck a lot of girls.
Being fit means having the ability and motivation to reproduce in current environment.

Now, ask yourself why are you not fit? maybe being stupid or ignorant of the current fem centric environment is being more fit.

incognitoperson
Guest
incognitoperson
Offline

Agree. Fitness is reproductive success.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Yet evolution cares not for success, reproduction, fitness, or anything. It cares not about extinction, fratricide, homicide, deicide. Only you care. Why do you care? WHY? Because you evolved to care? Because evolution made a mistake in making you care?
Or because evolution is wrong?

incognitoperson
Guest
incognitoperson
Offline

Long term happiness is tied to fertility. Living things are meant to multiply. Otherwise mental illness sets in. Depression and suicidality are higher in developed nations with low fertility than they are in poor nations with high fertility.

So, we have evolved to care about reproduction. Most “red pillers” will eventually reproduce, and their offspring will become the most important things in their lives, more important than themselves even. It’s natural.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

None of what you said applies to plants or bacteria.

And living things are not meant to do anything, let alone multiply.How many have not multiplied!

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Yes. Survival of the fittest is of the fittest for survival. A tautology. An absurdity.

Blaster
Guest
Blaster
Offline

It’s not a tautology, it’s a known result with unknown factors. A next reasonable step in a scientific process would be to attempt to discover and isolate those specific factors to learn what they are.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Survival of the fittest is useless. It doesn’t tell us anything important that we didn’t already know before evolution. It doesn’t explain how genes signal and cooperate to create new morphology, new organs. All it says is that the fittest adaptations result in survival and those adaptations carry forward. No freaking shit. That’s been known a long long time and has nothing to do with evolution.

Just because one species went extinct and its cousin didn’t doesn’t mean anything about either particular species’ fitness. Neither species was more “fit for survival.” The environment merely changed. If you could transport the extinct species to a different environment you would say that it was fit to survive. Instead of calling this “survival of the fittest” you could easily call this “winner of natural lottery” or “survival among randomness.”

CellNecrosis
Guest
CellNecrosis
Offline

Dude, just shut up already. Everyone’s tired of your bullshit.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

GFY

EvoIsWhatItIs
Guest
EvoIsWhatItIs
Offline

Well there are some good points in regard to the environment in your reply, yet I will say this:
1. Survival of the fittest first and foremost give as a frame to look and understand the evolution over a long period of time.
2. While it is closely tied to the environment, saying “winner of natural lottery” is beautifully describe evolution in the sense that the randomness is both on the gene side and on the environment side, that does not take anything from the statement “Survival of the fittest” due.
Our genes, although random to some degree are not completely random and radical changes in the environment does not occur every other day.

And to the point:
Given the current environment (Be it physical or political or both), and given our genes which made us who we are (beautiful, smart, manipulative, depressive, don’t want to have a child in the current political environment or whatever), the most fit will reproduce and this have any sense only in looking back and trying to understand why the fuck humans are the way they are 400 years in the future.

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

Randomness does not exist anywhere in nature. It has not been proven or observed. It is philosophically impossible, and to use “randomness” in a discussion of science is anti-science. Citing “randomness” is identical to saying “it’s magic.”

InPursuitOfTruth123
Guest
InPursuitOfTruth123
Offline

There seem to be two distinct ideas that you’re grouping together under the banner “evolution” or “Darwinism.”

1.) A mechanism by which biodiversity is realized through random gene permutations that, over generations, lead to the evolution of distinct species.

2.) A mechanism by which maladaptive genes are culled from the population.

I would argue that inasmuch as evolution entails the first item, it has an abundance of evidence in support of its truth. This much holds true for humans as well as animals: consider skin pigmentation, for example.

The second item is the portion of the whole with weaker evidence and more potential caveats specifying how exactly the process manifests. This portion does not seem to apply to humans much, if at all, especially in modern society. Even in animals there is the possibility of such culling taking place gradually, perhaps due to climate change, or suddenly, due to a disastrous event such as an asteroid impact.

Viewing evolution not as a causal process, moving forwards in time by virtue of its effect upon individual behavior, but rather as an explanatory device, working out retrospectively how present realities arose due to characteristics and dynamics of the underlying system, seems to be a way to reconcile the apparent contradictions you bring up in your article.

As an aside, I found the sentence

“If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory.”

to be the most valuable of the whole article because it speaks to the need to reflect upon our own assumptions and reasoning processes so that we do not fall into the trap of rationalizing our behaviors after-the-fact, rather than thinking clearly up-front about what we want to do and why. Self-justification and rationalization of mistakes, i.e. playing the victim, are, in my view, the most harmful and dehumanizing habits plaguing modern society, especially women. As I hope to avoid such errors in my own thinking, your highlighting the way in which evolution can be used in that way was valuable to me.

enriquegp
Guest
enriquegp
Offline

Roosh, there are some very thoughtful responses on here, especially from Quintus Curtius and Davis Aurini. You are in no place to criticize the theory of evolution, as it seems you don’t really grasp what a scientific theory even is. I mean this in the same way that you are in no position to criticize the theory of gravity, or music theory, or, to put it into perspective, theories in high-level theoretical physics – even if you understood the basics, you are still extremely ignorant up until the point that you have dedicated decades of your life to the study of it.

Blaster
Guest
Blaster
Offline

While I agree, I do think it’s quite fair to criticize “evolution proponents” like Richard Dawkins as well as pop science literature that tries use evolution to explain everything. I don’t entirely blame Roosh for not getting the definition of evolution right, since its most vocal proponents tend to not get it right either.

TFD123
Guest
TFD123
Offline

We (and other animals) didn’t evolve to *want to reproduce*. We evolved to have an uncontrollable biological urge to mate.

For most animals, that primal urge to mate results in offspring. For humans, it looks like we’ve become so smart and conscious (at least, those of use with low time preferences) that we’ve figured out how to abundantly enjoy the mating, while avoiding the time-consuming & life-altering aftereffect of offspring.

In other words – based on current trends, it looks like high IQ and low time preferences are being selected out. (Or at least, these traits won’t be as abundant in future generations as compared to lower IQ and higher time preferences.)

Evolution / natural selection doesn’t select for things that are “good”. Just for whatever results in offspring. It’s not a conscious process that says “hey, I’m gonna select for this”.

Evolution is just a way of logically describing the biological concept that “whatever traits result in more offspring… well those traits are going to be more abundant in the next generation”. And right now high IQ & low time preferences look like they’re going to be less abundant in the next generation. So be it. (Or at least, high IQ & low time preferences *in combination with the personality type that desires to live a hedonistic lifestyle for yourself*. Aka the educated secular segment of the population.)

Taco Idol
Guest
Taco Idol
Offline

I got halfway and have to go do something right now, but right off the bat the error of logic here is assuming there are no mitigating factors in play that can suppport Darwin’s theory. One factor is that organisms have a finite amount of energy…being deceptive ALL of the time would put a strain on the species beyond what might support even having a species. There needs to be down-time between competitive moments, or else the population dies. Also, organisms have reward/punishment mechanisms…if somebody wants to donate to a charity, they may be losing resources, but be gaining social access to wider community of potential mates or tribesmen of similar culture. Not everything is feirce competition, some things are merely a win-win for mutual parties. Competition like many things have grey areas. If you killed you best friend in ancient times because you wanted his wife, well that may not be the best thing because when someone came to kill you he would not be around to help defend your tribe. What I’m saying is, sometimes taking a loss is not a loss at all..it’s really just making the best chess move.

blake richards
Guest
blake richards
Offline

Darwin’s theory stopped applying to us humans the minute we got out of the food chain. We’re not in the cycle of life anymore. We raise animals and plants to eat. What other organism on Earth does that?

SgtPOG
Guest
SgtPOG
Offline

And when did we get out of the food chain? It could be when God breathed the breath of life into a construct of dust and pulled a rib out for all you know.