Link: Why we need eugenics

The founding stated purpose of the NHS was eugenic.
It isn’t what your history teacher brainwashed you.
Every celebrity sticking up for “healthcare” is into eugenics.
As long as the NHS pays for abortions and contraception.

Repeat abortions nursing article:

“there is a significant risk that the child would suffer physical or mental abnormalities leading to serious handicap”

Various conditions will disappear.

http://atavisionary.com/why-we-need-eugenics/

Important practical note:

Logically, you’d need proportionate eugenic policies to simply counterbalance the dysgenic ones, purely to even it out and start from neither. neutral position. Eugenic in this case is basically any policy that encourages healthy taxpayers to have more kids and raise them properly (that will also have better life outcomes and so on into prosperity via pursuit of individual happiness helped by the nation state they own, how terrible, right?). Dysgenic is whatever prevents this sustainable circle of life (holds aloft a lion cub) or more directly harmful, promotes ill-health and sterility in a population swayed by antisocial (punitive) policy changes. It’s technically dysgenic to promote the continuation of the “loser” lines of the outgroup too (keeping prisoners and slaves instead of killing them in war means eventually your kids will breed with them) but that’s also pathological altruism (classic empire suicide) and only formerly happened when a major war was lost and most of the healthy men were dead (conquest). Migration patterns is a PC way to say “conqueror boundaries”.

To promote continuation of another genetic line over one’s own isn’t merely genetic suicide and likely a form of madness (nothing in evolution accounts for this and it’s direct ingroup harm), it’s literally a spin on treason.

If the outgroup is so great, go live among them before “helping”.

Demographics matter. Biology matters. People’s personalities, including non-cognitive traits that affect life outcomes, are highly heritable. Specific pro-social temperaments conducive to civilization have been demonstrated to be genetically determined in animal studies with foxesand mice. In addition, all relevant identical twin studies have found that genetics accounts for at minimum 45% of the total variation in intelligence within populations. A significant portion of studies, notably including the most comprehensive ones, have estimated the genetic contribution to be between 70 and 80%. The heritability of intelligence has also been demonstrated in non-human primates.

IQ as a measure of intelligence and a predictor of positive outcomes has been demonstratedbeyond any shadow of doubt. Not only are those with high IQ more likely to have positive life outcomes on a personal level, but their efforts as a class contribute significantly more to the economic health and technological progress of civilization than the average or low IQ classes.

You want equal outcomes?
Start with equal contributions!

“They can’t”? Yeah, we know!

That is literally our point.

So who owes whom, considering the people who take more than they produce have the privilege of living off those other people already, purely for a coincidence of geography?
National socialism, right there. Producers enslaved to consumers, seems temporary.

They complain about The Rich but never want to kick the Russians out of London, do they?
Then it’s lachrymose Guardian pieces blithely bemoaning why property is so expensive.
Putin kicked those corrupt Russians out and you wanna keep them? WHY?

The only Russian collusion is with real estate agents.

IQ is so important to civilization, in fact, that the relative wealth of a country can be accurately predicted from average IQ*. Intriguingly gains that result from increasing intelligence do not suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, the relative fertility of high intelligence vs. low intelligence people has significant implications for the evolution of civilization and humanity…..

Evolution is ongoing remember.

Incentives make societies based on their priorities and values, punitive sanctions on health and markers of prosociality e.g. income tax paid, decay the society of envy.

The politics of envy end in death. I guess it’s the sociopath’s way to prevent ‘suffering’.

I feel like the only person to notice how America’s hand-wringing guilt over its “evil” supposedly ‘eugenic‘ sterilizations of the grossly dependent went without mention during the unusual boom times a generation plus afterward. The same prosperity occurs after the natural culling effect of major disease outbreaks. This happens everywhere.

Black Death > Boom, Renaissance

Everywhere.

Polycystic ovary syndrome caused in utero

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2168705-cause-of-polycystic-ovary-syndrome-discovered-at-last/

I wonder if the mother’s history of Pill use or abortion has any effect?

http://sciencenordic.com/birth-control-pills-halve-size-women%E2%80%99s-ovaries
“Birth control pills can reduce women’s ovaries upward 50 per cent in size. However, it’s not dangerous, says lead scientist.”
“We noticed that a number of young women who took birth control pills had ovaries that looked like they were approaching the menopause,” she says.’
“Generally, the more eggs a woman has, the higher the AMH level in her blood.” So could it connect to r-selected women? Or something else?

Smear test risks not warned

I wonder why.

Why do an unnecessary procedure, even on virgins, misinform them that they must do it and charge for something physically damaging to the future reproductive health, that they can also charge for?

Why not study or publish the negative outcomes, which are hard to trace?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831804-400-women-arent-being-told-real-risks-of-cervical-cancer-screening/

Almost like they want to hurt women and abort their babies.
I can’t find a way to link the whole thing, especially if the EU have their way.

Blood tests exist for cancer, like STDs, smear tests are outdated Victorian perversions and if you look up the law, plausibly a form of rape with an object, especially if misinformed.

https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/miscarriage-after-a-pap-smear?page=4
If you damage the cervix, it can cause permanent harm.
Would men allow their balls to be scraped with a small serrated metal knife? oh, bleeding’s normal, it’ll heal, don’t worry!

“The overseas doctor said that was a big no’ no’ and that they never pap in the first tri-mester.” In a foreign country. If they know…

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Low birth rate caused by birth control, explained

If we’re talking evolution and society, we need to review everything in light of r/K.

Slut shaming was prosocial. Bring back bachelor tax (we already have it in welfare parent tax for non-parents).
http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-birth-control-basilisk.html

More sex than ever, fewer babies. Doesn’t take a genius to work out.

It tends to cull r-types, birth control was designed for married K-types to curb in line with their natural instincts and environmental needs.
“3. People have a very strong, uncomplicated desire to love and care for the children they have.”
K-types only.
It’s impossible to discuss sex without sexual strategy.

And yet people do.

” A strong desire to have sex ensures children are produced with fairly high regularity, because birth control is either non-existent or unreliable. ”
R-types only.
Ks limit their sexuality for monogamy, once pair-bonding has been achieved with a suitable mate. In human terms, after marriage.
Most of the sub-replacement fertility in Europe is due to the low marriage rates. It’s good that people aren’t reproducing out of wedlock.

“The whole idea of it being a contentious question whether you chose to have kids or not is, as far as I can tell, a shockingly recent question. If the only way you could so choose would be to either a) not get laid, or b) rely on methods that require practice, discipline in the heat of coital moment, forward planning and/or health risks, the discussion would be largely moot.”

Still no mention of marriage as related to procreation.
This, from a traditionalist.
People are that decoupled. Thanks, sexual revolution!
Birth control is K-selected, the problem is that it didn’t account for the Revolution that messed with marriage.
If everyone having sex is married, it becomes a matter of family planning.
If anything with marriage goes awry, the r-types win out because the Ks aren’t even hopping the first hurdle of the big white wedding day. Plus they’re limiting.
The man who invented The Pill intended for it to help spouses who wanted to enjoy sex but not bankrupt their pre-existing families. We could also limit birth control to those who’ve already bred like it used to be but that’s too sensible. Chemical BC causes many health problems in women, there’s medical grounds to restrict it.
The Pill as a theory is K-enforcing since it imposes their pattern on the r-types.

Never including IQ as a factor in to who is/should be allowed birth control by the state is also an issue.
Age to a lesser extent. You don’t finish developing until your twenties.

Eggs from skin cells

Doesn’t mean much without a woman willing to implant, grow and raise it (with similar genetics, as all the data says is required). Aka you can’t outsource the bulk of the labour and various factors e.g. maternal blood, continue to influence since the placenta is an intentionally poor filter. Evolution is smarter than you.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-paper-potentialfor-worseof-vitro-gametogenesis.html

They forget the criminal angle.

What’s to stop an illegal trade in stolen cells from celebrities to produce good-looking children or make a rich baby daddy/momma? aka reproductive abuse and a form of rape?

The ethicists warned you. But nooo, that was the conservative approach. Instead, congratulations, you advocate eugenics. Producing embryos to abort them for cultural reasons. May God have mercy on your atheist soul.

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