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.

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

Paper: The population cycle drives human history

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

No, it’s an actual paper.

The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.

…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.

I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5

These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….

cool mocking shades yes peace

#mike drop#

…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….

Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.

This says it all:

When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.

And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.

If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.

Over to John Stuart Mill;

“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”

Link: London teachers encouraging teen pregnancy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278061/Schools-start-telling-pupils-children-early-possible.html

It might be to make work for themselves.
It might be demographic.
Maybe they noticed they need more liberals to recruit or push into Higher Ed.

Notice the blame here? Notice the stupidity masquerading as sense?

Logically, let’s backtrack this.

Old enough to support it. Well, as Captain Capitalism has mentioned, the economic system is calculated against fertility, it is anti-natal and has been making women barren, because the time it takes for them to support a child eats into their reproductive window (as does education, which goes unmentioned).

Okay, so a woman needs support.
Gee, whose responsibility is that?
Let’s look to child health. They’re healthier with married parents. Better outcomes all around. Better citizens for society, less crime, better health and happiness.

So the woman needs to be a wife to have children young.

What needs to happen before this is possible?

...Anyone?

Any guesses?

What’s wrong with this picture?

The boys are refusing to become men.

tyra take responsibility

They are acting like men but refusing to man up to the consequences they caused.

Boys need to stop having children they have no intention of supporting out of wedlock, expecting the state to pick up the expense. They should choose a wife and marry young. That is the male choice.

Yet these teachers, they’re foisting the burden on women, despite how older fathers are behind the rise in retarded children (look it up, damaged sperm and probability of psychiatric conditions).
Instead of telling the boys to stop fucking around, they’re pushing the responsibility of commitment on the girls, knowing the girls have no power to influence this outcome (it’s a decision that falls to the male) and knowing full well they’ll end up a burden on the State – and wouldn’t you know it, the State Education System!

p.s. the natural process of reproduction will never be removed from sex, it’s a myth; if you’re old enough for the responsibility of sex, you’re old enough to have a child. On the flipside, if you’re having a child because you’re expected to, or for external gain, abort the poor child and do them a favour, you’d be an awful parent.

p.p.s. I would not want a child with the economy about to tank, but that’s just me. A tiny dependent infant in a low income household with high time preference is practically the worst position I can think of in a zombie apocalypse.

p.p.p.s. We’re all parents, financially speaking. Our taxes are all paying for children. They aren’t our children. We’re tax-pumped cuckolds. That’s why we can’t afford our own children.

Women’s role in the workplace and history

http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/feminizing-decline.html

The most important job in the history of the world is making and raising better people for the world. You can’t really top that for a purpose, the gift of Life. Ancient societies used to worship women for this power.

It’s the most difficult job because quality is hard to ensure. It’s also vital to a better future.

And look at the Spartan women – one job they had, to make little Spartans, they had one job, and they didn’t do it. And everyone died. This is left out of the feminist propaganda. 

A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug

I see other women my own age running about like headless chickens saying “I want to save the world” and I have to point out, 1. that’s impossible, 2. it isn’t a pleasant task (wouldn’t it involve mass-murdering all the evil people? the simplest thing?) and 3. surely the best one person can do is become The World to another person aka children?

As you can imagine, precisely none of this gets through.

STFU and pay attention to the truth you little bitches we are trying to help you!

As a rule, I don’t explain myself twice to stupid people who don’t deserve to reproduce if they can’t understand something the first time around.

The demographic boom of Africa and world future trends

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/16/the-amazing-surprising-africa-driven-demographic-future-of-the-earth-in-9-charts/

The local underestimation on government record is deliberate, by appearing smaller in number, they can extract more Western resources because coping.

Africa will continue to be a problem, probably the world’s biggest demographic problem (everybody’s problem), for at least the majority of this century. Yes, century, due to demo momentum.

There is plenty of arable land and resources… and the Chinese are greedily trying to buy these up. I suggest we shift White Man’s Burden onto these Asians who want to profiteer from Africa, wash our hands of the issue once and for all. Let them sort it out, they bought a lemon with those tenants. Most illegal immigrants to Europe are able, young male workers, but Africa doesn’t have any to spare (and those are the best they have, which says something).

Africa is a much larger landmass than we’ve all been led to believe, the maps we grew up with were corrected to fit well on maps and children’s globes (for memory) and make the oceans appear proportional to their real size, as a consequence Africa has been vastly under-depicted.  The NGOs have kept this lie because it’s hard to ask for money to give to an entire continent which dwarfs your own and, rightly, should be the ones supporting you instead.

http://goafrica.about.com/od/africatraveltips/ig/Maps-of-Africa/Map-of-Africa-Showing-True-Size.htm

So no, the Africa Problem / Calais Crisis / EU Invasion Issue is NOT going away by a long shot. It’s here to stay and even by conservative estimates, it is set to get much, much worse.
I’m not happy about this, but it’s the truth.

The UK can fit into Africa over 120 times.

You deserve a slightly better explanation so I dug this up.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography

…the fact that most people do not realise how much the ubiquitous Mercator projection distorts the relative sizes of countries.

A sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane without distortion, which means all map projections distort in one way or another. Some projections show areas accurately but distort distances or scales, for example; others preserve the shapes of countries but misrepresent their areas. You can read all the gory details on Wikipedia.

Gerardus Mercator’s projection, published in 1569, was immediately useful because it depicts a line of constant bearing as a straight line, which is handy for marine navigation. The drawback is that it distorts the shapes and areas of large land masses, and the distortion gets progressively worse as you get closer to the poles. (Africa looks about the same size as Greenland under the Mercator projection, for example, even though it is in fact 14 times bigger.) This was not a big problem for 16th-century sailors, of course, and the Mercator projection remains popular to this day……

Yes, I know, I’m a genius, but it’s mostly the old study of oceanography maps. It isn’t that hard, merely niche knowledge.

…An alternative and arguably more rigorous approach would be to repeat the exercise using an “equal area” projection that shows the countries’ areas correctly while minimising shape distortion. These two properties are the hardest to balance when showing the whole world on one map. I decided to rework Mr Krause’s map using Gall’s Stereographic Cylindrical Projection (1855) with two standard parallels at 45°N and 45°S. Distortions are still evident at the poles, but for most countries shape is maintained, and their areas are shown correctly. As you can see (below), the results are distinct from Mr Krause’s map. But however you look at it, his point is a good one: Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps….

Drumroll plz

Needy, or Greedy?

Evolution DOES apply to human beings

This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.

Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.

He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.

Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..

rdj claps applause mhmm

Another point I need to make;

Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.

The Ancient Romans had a contraceptive so successful they used it to extinction;

Silphium was an important species in prehistory, as evidenced by the Egyptians and KnossosMinoans developing a specific glyph to represent the silphium plant.[2] It was used widely by most ancient Mediterranean cultures; the Romans considered it “worth its weight in denarii” (silver coins). Legend said that it was a gift from the god Apollo.

This philosopher Roosh is citing doesn’t know jack about the relevant subjects and to anyone with a brain it shows.

Another counter-example or few, explain these;

r/K Selection Theory and amygdala damage in neoliberals. Conspicuous by omission. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory-2/

Liberal fertility rates. Covered spectacularly well here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/

Neoliberals are by no means the standard bearers of fertility, I believe he thinks this way due to urban living.
As for altruism, someone please force-read him: http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572
The West is experiencing increasing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue

Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that.
When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’.
When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?

david tennant 10 lol laughing cracking upThey're so stupid it's a laughriot

crying laughter lmaothrow head back laughter george jungle

Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/now-entering-starvation-mode-what-happens-your-metabolic-processes-when-you-stop-feeding-280666
http://io9.com/5941883/how-your-body-fights-to-keep-you-alive-when-youre-starving
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-embodied-mind/201212/survival-mode-and-evolutionary-mismatch

Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind of environment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n5/full/nrn3918.html Latest research. Latest in a long line.

Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/starvation-what-does-it-do-to-the-brain/
http://nchchonors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Young-Kelly-The-Psychological-Effects-of-Starvation-in-the-Holocaust.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201309/turn-the-eating
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/bite_me.html
http://io9.com/is-cannibalism-natural-1615483037

European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group

The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.

When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.

The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)

Corporal punishment used to root out the liars and the other genetic deformities (mental illness, serial killers, rapists etc). http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html

Roosh again;

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

Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).

 There is no veneer specifically made for humans.

Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin
http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q8NEM0
Please stop talking, this is causing me physical pain to read. I mean;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenetics
and yesterday http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/research-news/missing-link-found-between-brain-immune-system-major-disease-implications

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

It’s almost like there’s a part of the brain recently-evolved which can suppress our baser instincts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314144356.htm

The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.

Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/ConwaySchaller2002.pdf
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_11_butterflies.html

“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.

They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.

Evolution is an ongoing process. http://www.livescience.com/45685-human-evolution-not-over.html

Roosh has bought into the neolib frame that they are the end and future of the world.

Disappointing from a redpill. He’s trying to post-hoc rationalize his overt fertility clock.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-men-have-biological-clocks/

Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret