Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Advertisements

Book: Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism

https://archive.org/details/degenerationchap00lank

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

I’ve been looking for this.

One Google search away.
Along with this hint at r-selection.

“…Any new set of conditions which render a species’ food and safety very easily obtained, seems to lead to degeneration….”

Excuse me while I hide in shame.

Biologically?

My money’s on disinhibition from hypofrontality.
The loss of cellular material in the frontal lobe would scale us back to an earlier stage in evolution.

Article: Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No!

Richards’ essay on Hitler calls into question the entire enterprise of stigmatizing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the term “Social Darwinism”.  It’s not as if evolutionary theory has never been used to justify unethical practices. Any idea can be used for good or bad purposes. What’s wrong is the claim that evolutionary theory is somehow especially prone to misuse or was misused in specific cases such as Nazi war policy. We owe a debt of gratitude to careful scholars such as Robert J. Richards for setting the record straight.

TLDR: No.

Immediately, one of the biggest critiques of HBD and associated information, based on Godwin’s Law, is rendered null.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

Paper: What is Cultural Evolution?

http://www.humannature.hps.cam.ac.uk/PrepubPrinceton.pdf

Many of you are familiar with cyclical theories of history, they often include a heavy cultural component, for example assigning Millennials the status of a Hero Generation.

The mantle of Western Civ would also  come under this heading.