ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Post-evolutionary Man

Roosh not only observes that natural selection no longer applies to human evolution, but concludes that this indicates the inapplicability of the evo psyche model to human behavior:
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....

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.
I never bought into either the natural selection explanation for human evolution or the evo psych explanation for human behavior, but it is fascinating to see other high-caliber thinkers like Roosh who did beginning to reach similar conclusions.

Needless to say, this is one of the many topics we will be discussing at next week's open Brainstorm event. There are 500 290 seats left and seats can be reserved here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5402452949014075905. But whether you're interested in the event or not, you should definitely read the piece linked above.

Western society is now dysgenic as well as dyscivic. This means it cannot survive in its current form. Regardless of how fervently you support concepts like women's suffrage, equality, diversity, immigration and so forth, it is important to understand that, in the long term, you are choosing them over indoor plumbing, cheap and plentiful water, airplane travel, living wages, access to high-tech medical care, and reasonably full employment.

Believe or don't believe that you are doing it, but that is exactly the choice you are making every single day. The fact that you can't see the brick wall looming a few miles down the road does not mean it is not there.

Labels: ,

192 Comments:

Anonymous Mike M. (#315) June 04, 2015 11:09 AM  

I'm taking the Technological Aspects of Civilization, thank you very much. They work.

Toss the SJW nonsense into the toilet. Thanks to good engineering, it flushes.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 04, 2015 11:10 AM  

Well, aside from indoor plumbing, cheap and plentiful water, airplane travel, living wages, access to high-tech medical care, and reasonably full employment...what has Western Civilization ever done for us?

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 11:13 AM  

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.

This really doesn't follow. Another possibility is that many species are adapted to reduce their reproductive rates in times of stress, increasing long term reward at the expense of the short term. Whether consciously or not, people might tend to avoid having children in times of famine, fearing their inability to support and protect them. Western culture has become toxic, and people are growing increasingly pessimistic about the direction our society is taking.

Anonymous Tom June 04, 2015 11:24 AM  

Roosh has been intellectually changing in very interesting ways. It's like watching a cocoon going through metamorphosis, where you can see a butterfly inside just waiting to come out.

But the weird thing is, the butterfly has to fight its way out for itself, no matter how much you want to tear the translucent prison away yourself.

When I first read anything by Roosh (his blog, I've never read his books), I immediately started rooting for an Augustinian conversion. I don't know why, just something about his thirst for truth made me root for him. Strange since I'd have to admit I'm far too often a liar myself.

Blogger Nate Winchester June 04, 2015 11:27 AM  

The fact that you can't see the brick wall looming a few miles down the road does not mean it is not there.

Like I said before, Vox, some can see the wall coming, they just can't muster the fortitude to care.

It's rather the greatest irony. In ejecting God from the common cultural sphere, and embracing the evolutionary model of "survival above all," Man now finds that survival just really isn't worth the effort. It is a world of men without chests. They have become so regressed, we can't just say "extinction looms," we first have to explain why extinction is a bad thing (and remember that you're fighting against environmentalists who often end up arguing the reverse).

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 11:33 AM  

Here's a long rebuttal

I didn't think roosh's article was well written and his thought process is sloppy.

I'm not a proponent of evo psych, but this wasn't the best way to refute it.

Anonymous DavidKathome June 04, 2015 11:34 AM  

There is a complete disconnect between people who believe in evolutionary theory as reality while expecting a baby. If you ask them if they believe evolution is absolutely true, they will say yes. If you ask them if that means they might have something other than a homo sapiens child they will act like the question is crazy instead of perfectly logical based on their own beliefs.

And I have read evolutionary biologists saying the same thing Roosh said a couple of decades ago, that human beings have stopped evolving because we have conformed the environment to suit our present needs.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 04, 2015 11:45 AM  

Your penultimate paragraph reminded me of a favorite quote from John Ross: "[P]atriarchy is NOT the natural order. Neither is civilization, technology, heavy industry, central air, microwave ovens, etc. Patriarchy is an artificial construct that makes all these other desirable artificial constructs possible."

Roosh is making an interesting distinction here. The obvious response to his points about modern changes like birth control is that we haven't had time to evolve to adjust to those things, so our bodies and brains are still going through the old motions -- instinct overruling reason. But he's not arguing against that point; he's just saying it's not a useful paradigm if you want to go beyond trying to get laid and figure out how to keep civilization working.

I think I can go along with that. It never did really matter why women like bad boys (for instance), as much as understanding that they do and what that means to us now. It's interesting to try to understand the causes of things, but not absolutely necessary. Plus you run into people trying to stretch their favorite theory to explain everything under the sun.

Off-topic, but since black-knighting is a common theme here, and because it's hilarious: apparently some Wikipedia editors are changing pages to show Bruce Jenner's records as women's records (meaning he blew away all real women's records, of course), since the Official Stance now is that he was always a woman masquerading as a man. I don't know whether they're true-believer trannies-uber-all SJWs or black knights, but it's hilarious either way. I assume the SJWs will sort out the who/whom of the situation before long, but it'll be fun to watch in the meantime.

And ESPN wants to give Jenner their Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Freakin' awesome.

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 11:46 AM  

"If you ask them if that means they might have something other than a homo sapiens child they will act like the question is crazy instead of perfectly logical based on their own beliefs."

I would hope they'd reply that the entire concept of a species is fuzzy and often arbitrary. But that's probably expecting way too much.

"And I have read evolutionary biologists saying the same thing Roosh said a couple of decades ago, that human beings have stopped evolving because we have conformed the environment to suit our present needs."

I suspect that these are intellectually dishonest individuals who have realized the inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and the ideal of human equality. They come up with this nonsense so they don't get booted from the university jobs for not being PC enough while still clinging to mainstream opinions. Just a balancing act to make sure they still receive a paycheck and are in line for the next promotion.

Blogger kurt9 June 04, 2015 11:46 AM  

I never bought into either the natural selection explanation for human evolution or the evo psych explanation for human behavior

Blank slate? That which is old is new and what is new is old.

Blogger JP June 04, 2015 11:47 AM  

I think it's more psychological than biological. We were and are being brainwashed on every conceivable level that having kids is bad (overpopulation, the cost of raising a child, how painful childbirth is, how dangerous childbirth is, how terrible and messy toddlers are, etc). If we were driven purely by biological impulses, we wouldn't be seeing all this anti-reproductive propaganda.

We are being deliberately brainwashed into not wanting to reproduce. Young women ride3 the carousel because that's what they've been told is the cool thing to do by their idols, the cool kids on TV, their teachers, their professors, their "cool aunts", and so forth.

It's very unnatural (in the literal sense). If the theory held, Indians, Chinese and Africans would be the ones not having kids, not wealthy white people with lots of time on their hands.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 04, 2015 11:53 AM  

Noah B: the evidence is that "in times of stress" people have MORE children.

That is the whole point of Roosh's argument; that in times of plenty, we do not increase reproduction to the limit of food supply but rather we reduce reproduction and essentially waste the surplus on entertaining ourselves. On the sort of wanking that the PUA's indulge in, using another person's body as a disembodied hand, with no commitment to the person, to the community, to the future, or indeed to ourselves.

This is an essentially anti-survival behaviour, and there's no sensible way to claim that the survival imperative explains BOTH pro- and anti-survival behaviours. The theory that explains everything explains nothing.

You might as well throw up your hands and say the elves did it.

The genes simply aren't as demonstrably selfish as advertised.

Anonymous Nemo Maximus June 04, 2015 11:56 AM  

Calhoun's "rat city" experiment is most explicative here. Return of Kings has an article.

OpenID mattse001 June 04, 2015 11:57 AM  

I'm going to disagree.
Mutation/societal experimentation is random. All paths are pursued simultaneously. In advanced organisms/societies, most random change results in either silent, non-beneficial change or detrimental change.
In an organism, the result is death or reduced fitness. In a society, these harmful deviations are saved up until the breaking point is reached, and then all the detritus gets flushed out (violent revolution, civil war, race riots and ethnic cleansing, etc.). It is our bad luck to be living in the time of culling. Or good luck, depending on how you look at it.

PS: I've wondered if the increasing prevalence of depression in modern societies isn't an evolutionary response to the lack of external stressors.

Anonymous Steve June 04, 2015 11:58 AM  

Roosh is a sharp and interesting man.

Re: people who don't want to have kids.

Why not?

Children are brilliant.

It's not easy being a dad, but there's nothing more rewarding than having your own little gang of mini-me's.

Blogger kurt9 June 04, 2015 11:59 AM  

I think Gregory Cochran would disagree with the notion that humans have stopped evolving. he and his co-author argue in their book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

that human evolution has accelerated in the past 10,000 years and that this is why there are significant differences in cognitive ability and other behavioral traits between the various races. Social conditioning (involving epigenetics in some manner) can account for some of these differences, but not all of them.

Blogger David-093 June 04, 2015 11:59 AM  

@ Josh

From the rebuttal:

"So Roosh’s own example – just because he’s not reproducing, doesn’t mean that the whole of humanity is still not reproducing."

He's wrong. Fewer people are reproducing. The birthrate in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, China, Japan, and India has declined to well-below replacement level. It's not unheard of for a population to decline, for it's people to not reproduce, which is what's happening pretty much everywhere except Africa and even their population is showing signs of declining.

I wouldn't have gone Roosh's way in refuting evolution either, but the rebuttal is intellectually very weak.

Anonymous Porky June 04, 2015 12:02 PM  

That essay is what is commonly referred to as "not even wrong".

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer June 04, 2015 12:03 PM  

I think Idiocracy is the perfect response.

Evolutionary fitness is all about reproduction. It doesn't give a shit about your superior intellect or good looks or ability to build a rocket ship.

Hell, Vox himself has pointed out that the future belongs to whoever shows up for it. If you are not reproducing you are still part of the evolutionary process. The part with the branch with no leafs.

I recall reading somewhere that superior human IQ may be the result of genes from Neanderthals while Cro-magnums were more orientated towards group cohesion. The kicker is that Neanderthal genes are a small part of our genetic heritage and we are regressing towards the mean.

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:04 PM  

I wouldn't have gone Roosh's way in refuting evolution either, but the rebuttal is intellectually very weak.

I view roosh's piece and the rebuttal as two special needs kids on meth playing monopoly on a chess board.

Anonymous Chad Fang June 04, 2015 12:05 PM  

No. Organisms adapt to their environment over many generations. Change the environment, they start adapting to that (or go extinct). "Anti-evolutionary" is a nonsense phrase. It implies that evolution is a process of "improvement" against some cosmic metric, but that doesn't make sense. Penguins lost the ability to fly; is that evolution or "anti-evolution"? Silly question.

Currently, inner cities select for behavioral traits you and I and Roosh find repugnant, but our repugnance is as irrelevant to biology as it is to physics or chemistry.

Some traits, the ones whose carriers have the most descendants, end up more common than others. That's all. This is no more "anti-evolution" than it's "anti-gravity" when you drop a bowling ball on your foot by accident. It's just gravity. Your personal preferences are an unrelated topic.

By the way, it takes more than three or four generations to change a population substantially if all you've got is the selection pressure level we're seeing in Detroit. Even if you totally eliminated reproduction by the least caddish 95% of men, it would take longer.

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:06 PM  

Good God, Roosh...I don't think he has thought that through thoroughly enough.

"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."

How does this in anyway prove anything? The fact that there are people who act in way that lead to their Darwinian failure, in no way contradicts what he thinks it contradicts.

"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?"

....how could that possibly be correct? Oh my.

Evolution here means that there are random mutations and depending on the environment, different genetic patterns get promoted/selected against. In this case, hedonists who think that one or no kid is enough contribute to future wherein there are fewer hedonists who avoid parenthood and more people who deliberately conceive more children/are too r selected to bother with contraception. In other words, classic natural selection. (I suppose you could question the "natural" part, but meh)

Is he trying to claim that "xyz is a sign of fertility, therefore it's more attractive" is a moot point, because sex no longer correlates with reproduction? I could see that point, but not even 100 years have passed since easy contraception became available, therefore the impulses that we have developed under a "no reliable contraception" environment.

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:07 PM  

He's wrong. Fewer people are reproducing. The birthrate in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, China, Japan, and India has declined to well-below replacement level. It's not unheard of for a population to decline, for it's people to not reproduce, which is what's happening pretty much everywhere except Africa and even their population is showing signs of declining.

He said the whole of humanity, which includes Africa.

If the number of humans increases, humans are reproducing.

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:07 PM  

"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...."

Good God Roosh..."evolution was not present during the sex event"? xD

Evolution also "wasn't present" during sex in the non contraceptive days. I he believes that Evo Psych requires the premise "Evolution is present during sex", he is mistaken.

Women have a desire to have sex with men that would provide them with a Darwinian advantage, if contraception wasn't present. The fact that that advantage won't come forth, doesn't mean that the urge to seek it out isn't there.

"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."

Roosh seems to believe that the Theory of Evolution is about how people have a strong tendency to act in ways that enhances their reproductive fitness., when it's really more about how people, who act in ways that ehance their reproductive fitness, are going to be selected for and those who don't will be selected against.

In other words, Evolution isn't about who's right, it's about who's left.

"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."

Roosh makes the classic mistake of equating "Survival of the fittest" with "Survival of those most resembling the genetic ubermensch" when it's really "Survival of those most fit to survive". (yes, I know, this shit is wall to wall tautology) In other words, People who have shitty fitness, are stupid and have attributes which appear to be negative, can nontheless be fit to reproduce. Yes a squat, low IQ, physically unimpressive Central American with 7 kids is more fit to reproduce than Roosh.

Hint: there is a reason why the terms "eugenic" and "dysgenic" have been invented.

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:08 PM  


"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."

I don't really understand him. What has changed is the set of traits selected for, not the process involved in the selection.

The problem with this who "Evolution thing" is that it is highly tautological. Think of sensitive testicles. It seems like it is detrimental to survival, because it is a weakness, but if it is such a weakness, why do billions of human males have it? It CANNOT possibly be all that detrimental for reproduction, or else it would've been weeded out. Anything that doesn't get weeded out is, by definition, not detrimental enough. This includes fainting sheep.

The main criticism that one could level at Evo Psych, or Evolution in general, is that it is almost impossible to quantify. I mean the process definitely exists, but "scientists", who concern themselves with Evolution, can only think about the topic in a way that is the very opposite of rigorous. Moreover, I'm pretty dubious, whether the scientific method, such as we know it, can even be employed to explore evolution.

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 12:10 PM  

"The theory that explains everything explains nothing."

Correct. And this is the problem with trying to make logical arguments against evolution, as Roosh has done. Evolution doesn't make any particular prediction about the future, so it's untestable and logically irrefutable. Which should render it scientifically void, whether some variation of evolution is an accurate description of biological history or not.

Conversely, one might just as well present a lengthy argument asserting that the elves did not, in fact, assassinate JFK. You can never prove they weren't there, because they're invisible.

OpenID mattse001 June 04, 2015 12:11 PM  

I think global reproduction rates are low as a result of female equality. Absent societal pressure, I believe most women won't reproduce above replacement levels. "An heir and a spare," as the saying goes. That satisfies their biologic urges, but exposes them to the hassle of child raising. Having kids is a hassle for them, and they won't freely choose to have more than 2.
Of course, replacement level is between 2.1 and 3.4, depending on the rate of child mortality.
This is why demographic decline accompanies societal advance throughout history. Women get equal, women stop having kids, society dies.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 12:13 PM  

Noah B: the evidence is that "in times of stress" people have MORE children.


Someone please post a reference. I know that the US birth rate dropped during the 1930's. It is well known that biological stress beyond some point will cause otherwise healthy women to stop menstruating.

So there is evidence at the social level, and the biological level, pointing to "fewer children in times of stress". Again, someone point to a reference for "more children in times of stress".

Roosh's argument looks pretty much like handwaving, in that he's taking a couple of generations of dysgenic behavior and trying to shoehorn thousands of years of other behavior into it. Maybe next Roosh will "discover" Sir Glubb and announce that historical cycles exist, and he, Roosh, is going to tell us all about it?

Humans are often lazy and indolent, is that supposed to be news?
Obesity is increasing because why? Carousel riders are more common because why?

I point to The 10,000 year explosion as a counter to Roosh - evolution of humans is not only continuing, it's been accellerating for centuries.

One means by which humans have been evolving: warfare. Ghengis Khan certainly had an effect on the genotype of central Asia, just for one example. Population replacement by violent means.

Vox's conclusion is essentially "The future belongs to those who show up for it", which ought to be beyond question, but of course it is controversial among the anointed aristocracy. Except within their own families, naturally. So perhaps all the anti-natalist propaganda is just some groups seeking to cement their own advantage.

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:19 PM  

The pinnacle of human evolution is Bruce Jenner.

OpenID mattse001 June 04, 2015 12:20 PM  

"Evolution doesn't make any particular prediction about the future, so it's untestable and logically irrefutable."
The problem with testing evolution is that too many variables are changing at the same time, and there's no way to isolate them. For a strictly deterministic result, a la classical physics, evolution cannot be tested. But it can be tested in a probabilistic manner.
Probability is an acceptable way to describe theories like this. That's how they discovered the Higgs Boson.

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 12:21 PM  

The laughter is hurting my face, Josh

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:21 PM  

I think this is going to be Roosh's opening salvo against HBD.

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 04, 2015 12:23 PM  

The older I get, the more I realize the Bible is a pretty good predictor of human behavior.

Blogger Chester Lyman June 04, 2015 12:23 PM  

Roosh's argumentation was weak and leads me to think he's become skeptical of TENS due to the numerous contradictory "just so" stories that it's used to justify, and would like to refute it definitively. The problem is that he's approaching TENS as though it had a telos when in fact TENS assumes an utterly random, purposeless cosmos.

Blogger David-093 June 04, 2015 12:25 PM  

"He said the whole of humanity, which includes Africa.

If the number of humans increases, humans are reproducing."

Africa's population is beginning to decline, but not before it (supposedly) reaches 2.5 billion. Which basically assumes there won't be an epic war, famine, or pandemic that cuts that short.

The Amish are reproducing well-above replacement level, more so than the average African (which has something like 5 kids per woman). It's a stupid argument on either side, since humans won't go extinct, there will always be people having kids, but evolution depends on people successfully reproducing. You can't evolve if you're not there. The rebuttal denying the supreme importance of reproduction to evolutionary theory is asinine.

"I view roosh's piece and the rebuttal as two special needs kids on meth playing monopoly on a chess board."

Roosh is in this sense is like a young-earth creationist. I don't necessarily hold his beliefs or arguments, though our end is the same, but I'm sympathetic to them despite they're not being perfect.

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 12:26 PM  

"But it can be tested in a probabilistic manner."

How?

Blogger David-093 June 04, 2015 12:27 PM  

"I think this is going to be Roosh's opening salvo against HBD."

Maybe Roosh found out he's part Jewish.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 12:28 PM  

Roosh also seems to assume a uniformity of behavior that simply is not supported by reality. Has he ever read anything regarding the effects of the Hajnal line? It does not appear to be so, yet his preferred habitation is always to the west of that line. No doubt for totally cultural, blank slate reasons of course.

Blogger Alex N June 04, 2015 12:34 PM  

"other high-caliber thinkers"

do you really honestly believe yourself to be a high caliber thinker? Even though you, as evident from this text, don't actually understand how evolution works, and why this argument is of no importance? That's rich

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:40 PM  

Maybe Roosh found out he's part Jewish.

Well he is a swarthy Persian or Turk.

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 12:41 PM  

do you really honestly believe yourself to be a high caliber thinker? Even though you, as evident from this text, don't actually understand how evolution works, and why this argument is of no importance? That's rich

You, sir, are clearly a .22 caliber thinker.

Anonymous Porky June 04, 2015 12:42 PM  

This guy spent four years studying microbiology and never learned about the neutral theory?

Blogger MidKnight (#138) June 04, 2015 12:45 PM  

From Roosh -

In fact, the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction.

This.

I've had this discussion before.

It's not just the presence of "birth control" and the individual impact it has on how many kids couples have.

It's not whether or not any given women, with an aptitude, desire, and personality to go into programming, physics, etc. and be good at it, chooses to do so with her life.

It's not the "putting off kids until later" attitude.

It's not tolerance or not giving a damn about homosexuals and who chooses to sleep with whom.

It's birth control, AND putting kids off, AND not only accepting careers where women prove their ability as men do but pushing that as a primary life path for all women instead of families, AND promoting not just toleration but active promotion of homosexuality (how many gays married to beards had kids in the past?), together, that kills the reproductive rate.

Never mind the contempt (insofar as I've met, a minority, but they get published in mainstream liberal sources without getting laughed out of the room) of radical homosexuals and radical environmentalists towards "breeders"

In short - the combination of beliefs and attitudes that are being actively promoted is resulting in there not being a following generation to carry the society and its mores on.

Blogger VD June 04, 2015 12:46 PM  

do you really honestly believe yourself to be a high caliber thinker? Even though you, as evident from this text, don't actually understand how evolution works, and why this argument is of no importance?

(shakes head) Midwits....

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:46 PM  

"On the sort of wanking that the PUA's indulge in, using another person's body as a disembodied hand, with no commitment to the person, to the community, to the future, or indeed to ourselves."

I hate people of your kind.

"This is an essentially anti-survival behaviour, and there's no sensible way to claim that the survival imperative explains BOTH pro- and anti-survival behaviours. The theory that explains everything explains nothing.

You might as well throw up your hands and say the elves did it."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody claimed that evolution would necessarily prevent reproductively harmful behaviors from ever appearing in humans.

"This is an essentially anti-survival behaviour, and there's no sensible way to claim that the survival imperative explains BOTH pro- and anti-survival behaviours."

What did Vox say about "essentially" again...

There is no "survival imperative". You just made that up in your head.

"The genes simply aren't as demonstrably selfish as advertised."

You have no idea what exactly is advertised.

Blogger Salt June 04, 2015 12:47 PM  

I don't believe the alpha carrousel is anything new. My best guess is that a lot of humanity is illicit sex born. What is new is technology. If condoms had been around 1000 years ago some would have used them. Even today they are not universally used nor are they 100% effective.

The biggest culprit is The Pill, a technological masterpiece. Up until modern technology Man could not destroy himself. Add it all up and my thought is that Man is heading towards Reboot 2.0.

Blogger Bernard Brandt June 04, 2015 12:47 PM  

The Stranger mused for a few seconds; then, speaking in a slightly sing-song voice, as though he repeated an old lesson, he asked, in two Latin hexameters, the following question:

"Who is called Sulva? What road does she walk? Why is the womb barren on one side? Where are the cold marriages?"

Ransom replied, "Sulva is she whom mortals call the Moon. She walks in the lowest sphere. The rim of the world that was wasted goes through her. Half of her orb is turned toward us and shares our curse. Her other half looks to Deep Heaven; happy would be he who could cross that frontier and see the fields on her further side. On this side, the womb is barren and the marriages are cold. There dwell an accursed people, full of pride and lust. There when a young man takes a maiden in marriage, they do not lie together, but each lies with a cunningly fashioned image of the other, made to move and to be warm by devilish arts, for real flesh will not please them, they are so dainty (delicati) in their dreams of lust. Their real children they fabricate by vile arts in a secret place."


That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 12:52 PM  

Maybe Roosh found out he's part Jewish.

Well he is a swarthy Persian or Turk.

Pretty sure he's Persian.

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:54 PM  

"(shakes head) Midwits...."

if your understanding of Evolution is comparable to Roosh's he's probably right though, lol.

You didn't correct Roosh at all. *shrug*

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 12:55 PM  

Roosh is Persian/Armenian.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 12:57 PM  

I think global reproduction rates are low as a result of female equality. Absent societal pressure, I believe most women won't reproduce above replacement levels. "An heir and a spare," as the saying goes.

Maybe it's just literacy. Certainly the birth rates in parts of southern Asia and Africa suggest that.

Female literacy correlates negatively with birth rate

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 12:59 PM  

Roosh is Persian/Armenian.

Then he could have one or more Jewish ancestresses.

Blogger JohnG June 04, 2015 1:03 PM  

He's just not taking a long enough view. The physicality of a human specimen is hardly important any more than the physical looks of a woman. I daresay the pretty specimens wouldn't last a week in the woods, and no matter how much of a jock a man is, it wouldn't help him against a pack of wolves, a lion, tiger or bear. Its all about the brains.

Who's not breeding? Who murders their own offspring? Who's got the hangup with homophilia lately (necrophilia, bestiality and any number of non-productive 'lias')...? I think Darwinism works fine here, it would be another bump to dark ages before the next advancement kicks in - maybe a short bump because you have about half the people that were sane to start with. But you can look at population thresholds and where disease and starvation kick in with deer and rabbit - in the case of people, the disease is mental and there will be a culling...if not self inflicted, it will be by the people that breed. I think a better question is when do people learn in greater numbers to regard history and not make the same mistakes?

Having said all that, I'm a Christian and I think everything is scripted and on schedule, don't believe in TENS - but if I were a Darwinist, I would say the current self destructive trend is just a blip on the radar.

Anonymous Porky June 04, 2015 1:07 PM  

Is this all just a publicity stunt for his new book, "Bang The Galapagos"?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein June 04, 2015 1:14 PM  

The pinnacle of human evolution is Bruce Jenner.

...and *she* had six kids!

Anonymous Native Baltimoron June 04, 2015 1:15 PM  

Posted this on the rebuttal page that Josh linked, but I think it's worth cross-posting here: "...the idea that the combined pressures of natural and sexual selection will change the ratio of certain phenotypic traits as a population survives and reproduces (or doesn't) is completely orthogonal to man's purpose in life, and even to the existence (or not) of a creator deity."

Based on his previous writings, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, I expect that Vox disagrees. Admittedly, the left has a long history of using evolution in conjunction with philosophical naturalism to rhetorically bludgeon the faithful into submission. I do think, however, that the case for a creator deity of some sort can be robustly made even if you cede evolution, abiogenesis, and philosophical naturalism.

For an atheist, explaining how life emerged as it did on Earth requires (1) an infinite universe with infinite time (so that all physically possible events happen somewhere at some time), or (2) citing the anthropic principle, which is essentially a circular argument. Or the multiverse theory, which is not well-supported by evidence, and is basically a restatement of (1).

For whatever reasons, the history of our little planet yielded a species capable of writing, art, music, and philosophy, and I can't help but think that's a pretty rare and miraculous thing in the universe. However it happened, it is wondrous, and it seems to me we owe thanks for that if nothing else.

Like many others in my generation, I drifted away from the Church in my adolescence, so I'm not nearly as familiar with Christian theology as many of the commentariat, but there have been many times when it seems that someone was watching over me and my family, and I'm thankful for that, too.

Blogger Mastermind June 04, 2015 1:24 PM  

"if your understanding of Evolution is comparable to Roosh's he's probably right though, lol."

Vox thinks his IQ is all he needs to understand evolution. Assuming he's not lying about his IQ, it clearly isn't.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 1:24 PM  

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.

I see what Roosh is trying to say and my only quibble is with this sentence. As I understand evolutionary theory, it's not necessary that the strongest reproduce but those who have best adapted to the environment. In our current environment those people are not always the strongest, best, and brightest.

However, I agree that in the long term that environment is dyscivic and dysgenic.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 04, 2015 1:27 PM  

As someone who does not believe TENS (for reasons of irreducible complexity, the tendency of mutations to degrade, the lack of transitional forms, the short timescale problem, and the problem of the Cambrian explosion which renders the tree of life theory unworkable, not to mention the nonexistence of testable verification of the theory), I don’t think Roosh’s argument is particularly strong. That said, sometimes it is a small observation about reality that brings ones entire world view into question. This particular speed bump seems to be Roosh’s impetus to reconsider the road he has been driving on. Good for him.

Blogger rho June 04, 2015 1:29 PM  

You, sir, are clearly a .22 caliber thinker.

Fun and easy to shoot?

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 1:29 PM  

Vox thinks his IQ is all he needs to understand evolution. Assuming he's not lying about his IQ, it clearly isn't.

What else would you need?

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 1:31 PM  

I think Gregory Cochran would disagree with the notion that humans have stopped evolving. he and his co-author argue in their book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion


Coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading that book. Fascinating stuff.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 04, 2015 1:34 PM  

Roosh is growing up. This is going to go over quite badly in certain quarters.

Blogger Mastermind June 04, 2015 1:39 PM  

"What else would you need?"

Honest effort to understand it, for starters.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 1:45 PM  

Honest effort to understand it, for starters.

I don't think you can't point to anything that shows that Vox hasn't made an honest effort, but fair enough.

But let's not do this in pieces. What is everything you need to understand evolution?

Blogger rho June 04, 2015 1:46 PM  

Honest effort to understand it, for starters.

This is where you're supposed to point out VD's errors.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 1:52 PM  

VD,
I respectfully partially disagree. Not all evo psych needs are wired to the same intensity.
Need to bang is much higher on the scale than need to look after result of said bang for next 20 years.
Nature is female, and of course she is a lazy bitch and only does the minimum half-assed jib to get things going.
So...while little head still rules as to what you want to DO with it, big head has enough say to determine HOW when you get to it.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 04, 2015 1:59 PM  

(shakes head) Midwits....

The combination of midwittery with sperginess results in a lot of people who can't tell the difference between a thought experiment and a thesis.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:00 PM  

Wow. All that intellect, yet you live amongst us common folk.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 2:06 PM  

Josh,
I saw this I didn't think roosh's article was well written and his thought process is sloppy.
And thought...seconded, then I read this:
I view roosh's piece and the rebuttal as two special needs kids on meth playing monopoly on a chess board.

And laughed my ass off and realised, yes. Yes. THAT is what I call accurate peer review.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 2:07 PM  

Wow. All that intellect, yet you live amongst us common folk.

Yes, but not among the dead-common common folk.

(laughs) MachoKing signed up for his blogger ID in June, 2015. Is that you, Obvious?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento June 04, 2015 2:10 PM  

Roosh is commenting on evolution VIA NATURAL SELECTION.
In His opinion, and paraphrasing the likes of Dawkins and his "selfish gene" theory, the aspects of evolution via natural selection seem to not apply to humans as much or in the same way they apply to other animals.

Blogger Josh June 04, 2015 2:10 PM  

And laughed my ass off and realised, yes. Yes. THAT is what I call accurate peer review.

This is how science works

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 2:13 PM  

@Giuseppe

Eh. Evolution doesn't care about bangs, it cares about offspring. The genes that make your brain engage in activity that produces no offspring should have been selected against long ago.

In simple form, Roosh isn't arguing that 100 bangs = 1 offspring is better or worse than 50 bangs = 1 offspring, he's pointing out that a lifetime of bangs = 0 offspring is impossible, because none of your ancestors had those genes.

In more subtle form, Roosh is pointing out that after 3.5 billion years of natural selection, there should be no species or group that voluntarily delays its average age to first offspring, at least in the presence of resource abundance (the west is resource abundant. legal issues etc don't exist as far as evolution is concerned). But yet, the west is at or below replacement fertility.

Blogger Nobody June 04, 2015 2:18 PM  

Spiritually:

For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

lovers of themselves - lovers of pleasure - without self-control - led away by various lusts. A strong craving or desire, for pleasure. The end outcome only to serve themselves. Self-absorbed.

Me, me, me.

Who wants, much less has time, for kids, when the pursuit of pleasure, for its own sake, is the goal?

Oh. Science.

*

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:19 PM  

No, just a visitor who decided to create an account. Is that a problem? Do I have your permission, ye of great intellect?

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 2:23 PM  

Stephen,
Your argument on behalf of Roosh is a category error.
Evolution doesn't care about the offspring. It cares only about getting enough behaviour in you to act out the act that will result in them.

What part of : "nature is female and thus a lazy bitch" didn't you understand?

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 04, 2015 2:24 PM  

Roosh is completely wrong on this one. The current population crash is quite predictable under Evo-Psych if you understand the normal conditions under which humans evolved to live. He even stated the reason in his first paragraph

"the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction."

A bit of history early humans normally lived in small tightly related bands of hunter-gatherers that work a few hours a week, how many will depend on the climate and society , and with specific socially and practically enforced gender roles. all human societies were like this well into the modern era .

We aren't allowed anything remotely like that and even the weaker versions we had in the past, uo to the 70's when the first crash happened are no longer permitted.

The reason some groups Africans and some other groups like the Afghans are doing better is that they keep our values out and are very tribal and have violently enforced pro-natal values.

In essence the Western World is a zoo where the material needs of the human animal are met in excess but the social needs are suppressed for the convenience and safety of the zookeepers. This leads to the animal being unable or unwilling to reproduce. heck in many societies people rarely have sex.

A sane system would realize this is unhealthy and suicidal but in human societies, you an't teach a man something his job depends ion him not knowing or would cost him status (paraphrase Upton Sinclair)

Its no wonder we long for an apocalypse, we're tigers pacing in a cage.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 2:25 PM  

No, just a visitor who decided to create an account. Is that a problem? Do I have your permission, ye of great intellect?

Why do you think you need my permission?

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 2:28 PM  

Harsh,
I know who he is. And now I also know he has a small dick. Funny and true.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:32 PM  

Except for the apocolypse you assert we crave was predicted prior to your assertions of the modern ways and problems of "human animals."

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 04, 2015 2:32 PM  

@Giuseppe

I have to agree with you.

Lord knows I attended enough weddings when I was in my twenties, where the bride was clearly and obviously five months pregnant. And the girl would still dress in white, with a veil.

Family on the other hand tends toward an artificial construct. One dependent on resources available. When resources are too plentiful the family unit always suffers. Women don't feel they need men during the years of fat.

Blogger alethiophile June 04, 2015 2:33 PM  

Hmm. I haven't read Roosh's whole article, but from the excerpt posted here, I can say that he seems to have a misunderstanding of the evolutionary explanation.

The evo-psych explanation for human behavior doesn't say "humans do whatever will increase their reproductive fitness". It says "humans execute adaptations which were successful at increasing reproductive fitness in previous generations". This is a subtle difference, but an important one. In particular, it means there is a lag between conditions changing and human instincts adapting to deal with them, which becomes longer the less selective pressure the maladapted instincts are generating.

For a trivial example, take the human taste for sugar. It evolved in a situation in which sweet things were 1. rare and 2. very useful as high-energy food. Thus, we really like sugar, and will often try to seek it out. Transplant those instincts into a situation in which, due to civilization, we can pretty much have as much sugar as we want, and you get a tendency to drastically overindulge, to the point where "eating more sugar" begins to obviously decrease reproductive fitness. If these conditions persist, then eventually the selective pressure against eating sweets until you're morbidly obese will produce humans with different instincts (less of a sweet tooth? greater self-control?). But that manifestly hasn't happened yet, at least across the entire species.

The example Roosh uses, of lots of wholly non-reproductive sex, is very similar. In the simple hedonic calculus imposed by people's instincts, sex is a positive, but having and raising children is basically a negative. (It becomes more fulfilling the higher the level at which you evaluate your preferences.) However, in the ancestral environment, this didn't matter. People would seek out sex (according to all the instincts appertaining thereunto, including each sex's disparate approach to selecting mates), and children would, thereafter, just happen. Human instincts do militate against abandoning or endangering your child, once you have one; that was something which could actually happen in the EEA. But there was never any need to evolve an instinct against preventing conception deliberately, because that wasn't something humans could do. Now that we can, we see a rash of widespread, fitness-reducing behaviors enabled by the new conditions, in a manner pretty closely analogous to eating too much sugar. And, again, if these conditions persist in the long run then we'll find the population evolving to handle them. (Or the conditions might not persist; say the populations of all the first-world nations crash hard enough that we lose industry, and then there's no one around who can make birth control pills anymore.) The fact that there exist transitional periods, during one of which we currently live, certainly isn't an argument against either evolution in general or evo-psych.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:36 PM  

Wow. How beta of you. Sounds like your strategy to retort is to go for the jugular with a 6th grade-level attack on a man's junk. You should try getting off the blogosphere and interacting with the female animals in your efficiency apartment complex.

Little cock, big cock, doesn't matter. It gets wet, regularly. Try it, sport.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 2:38 PM  

Wow. How beta of you.

Try not to go full Gamma on your first visit, Macho.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 04, 2015 2:39 PM  

Roosh is wrong, of course.  Almost everything he attributes to evolution has a completely different cause, and most of these causes are blatantly obvious.  He wouldn't have come up with this "argument" if he hadn't started from his conclusion and worked backwards.

The thing he missed is that humans are evolved to be social animals.  Membership in the group is typically required for survival; this is why shunning is so effective.  The problem is that Western culture has fallen under control of a genocidal elite which brands all the pro-survival traits as racist, sexist, homophobic or some other pejorative, and reinforces those words with social and economic penalties.  The potential damages from a "failed" marriage (loss of home, loss of majority of assets, loss of access to children, endless penury) are not natural, they were created by the elite to serve their own interests.  Is it any wonder that men refuse to get married and have children?

The ticket is that the ethny from which so much of the elite is drawn uses shunning and other social controls to enforce its own, pro-social and pro-ethnic rules within (but not outside) itself.  What we are seeing is a selection effect due to casualties of social and psychological warfare.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:41 PM  

No need to worry. Any methods I use will be a reflection of the adversary at hand. Besides, you've got proof of my penis size, remember...

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 2:42 PM  

So your snarky first comment was a reflection of your adversary?

Blogger Nobody June 04, 2015 2:45 PM  

"Oh. Science." Pardon me. Science did perfect the 50,000,000 plus revolving door abortions in the United States. Sometimes pleasure sucks, but we can fix that.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:46 PM  

Humans have evolved to be social animals? Or were they created to be social beings? Since evolution is working now and had been for billyuns and billyuns of years, you'd a figured some other prized species would have found a way to develop a speech apparatus to converse with us. Bonobos? Bushbabies? Dogs?

We've created the perfect conditions for apes and monkeys to evolve, yet they remain speechless.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 2:48 PM  

Your reputation preceded you. Your harsh. Hardcore. A man of the elite.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 2:51 PM  

Your reputation preceded you. Your harsh. Hardcore. A man of the elite.

Sorry, dude, but I don't speak sperg. Why don't you do yourself a favor and shut up and save yourself from further humiliation.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 04, 2015 3:07 PM  

"79. A.B. Prosper June 04, 2015 2:24 PM
...
Its no wonder we long for an apocalypse, we're tigers pacing in a cage. "



It's funny you put it that way. I wrote a comment a few weeks back where I described the masses of mankind as a beast being woken up by the antics of our self appointed elite. I didn't post it then. I will now.

People are beginning to feel cornered, like they have nothing left to lose.

Look, this political theater is getting to the point it is beginning to affect people in ways and to a degree previously unseen within my extended family's lifetimes. These political creatures apparently only understand a world where today is the same as yesterday and is expected to operate on the same rules. What they seem to refuse to see is what they are waking up.

I'm beginning to think the slumbering beast has opened its eyes. It is watching and deciding and it doesn't care about yesterday's rules.

I understand many of those in power want to provoke a reaction so they will have an excuse to kill some folks, take their wealth and justify greater government power. But I don't think they really understand the size or ferocity of the beast they are messing with.

I call it a beast for a reason. It doesn't use reason, it's an animal, it uses emotion and instinct to guide its actions. Once it sees something as a true mortal threat it will destroy that threat or die trying.

But here's the worst part, the beast doesn't give a shit about law, culture or civilization.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 04, 2015 3:09 PM  

All those killed baby girls in china means that the stupid low earning men will not be reproducing. From my conversations in leftist queer circles the most repugnant idea would be teaching young women their fertility and ability to marry drops sharply after 35. They would take elementary school kids to sex shops but are horrified by father times patriarchy mistreatment. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/03/schools-sex-ed-field-trip-to-sex-shop-angers-parents

consciously or not, people might tend to avoid having children in times of famine, fearing their inability to support and protect them
Only K selected people have less kids when they cant afford them, Ethiopia has had famine for 40+ years with a higher birth/growth rate than any civilized people. Ireland still has not recovered to its pre potato famine population. Hansel & Grettle was based on a practice of leaving kids that couldn't be supported in the woods. Stress would lower K reproduction while increasing R breeding. Some might say there is a tribe that profits off of such knowledge.

And now I also know he has a small dick. Funny and true. Thanks for the heads up but I am happy with who I have.

It gets wet, regularly. Try it, sport Are you telling us you shower regularly?

Anonymous Koanic June 04, 2015 3:12 PM  

Jack Donovan's "The Way of Men" exposes the difference between bonobo and chimpanzee societies. This is r vs. K applied to hominid social troupes, and parallels Sir John Glubb's Cycle of Empire quite well.

VD says he never bought evo psych. This doesn't change the fact that, like gold, it continues to appreciate in value.

One can perhaps fairly complain that the general theories of natural selection and r/K can explain too great a range of behavior to be considered falsifiable. This is unsurprising, since they must apply to all species. However, when one gets down to the behavior of closely related hominid troupes, the predictions get quite specific and the explanatory power quite good. The understanding of the female imperative elaborated in Donovan's book is in some ways more concise and powerful than anything I have seen in Red Pill literature, Vox included.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 04, 2015 3:14 PM  

Right now evolution favors a crack hoe squatting out 27 kids at taxpayers expense, over a woman with a degree in credentialization.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 3:17 PM  

So basically, you gleaned one book, took it has gospel, and now use it to pose in grandeur fashion as unassailable fact? Did you bother to look at counter-arguments, or does that scare you?

Anonymous Koanic June 04, 2015 3:21 PM  

To deny the sociobiological roots of the human cycle of empire and its application to the modern milieu and specific contexts therein is simply to intellectually impoverish oneself. While the Bible and a non-biological study of history provide parallel insights, one misses significant pieces of skeleton and large swaths of flesh by ignoring the sociobiological angle.

Given that one can accept an interventionist model of human evolution (e.g. Lloyd Pye's) without in any way harming the applicability of the sociobiological theories, there is simply no reason to reject their clear explanatory power.

Essentially what Roosh has done is proven that modern cars do not run on gas combustion because they have extensive electrical systems. (Natural selection being the gas, r/K + hominid troupes being the electrical systems).

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 3:24 PM  

Maybe these bonobos can shuffle in the next phase of evolution so they can finally critique us, write books, and build structures with plumbing and lighting in middle of the jungles of Africa. Since we're so similar and all.

Man is so unique that it scares him to reason himself into absurdity to come to grip with it.

Blogger Nobody June 04, 2015 3:29 PM  

To funny. All the men in my family were blue collar working men. All were intelligent, despite their lack you-know-versity. Yet never once, in my 56 years, did I ever hear them going on about other men's penis.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 3:32 PM  

To funny.

To funny! ::raises glass::

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 3:32 PM  

@Giuseppe

It cares only about getting enough behaviour in you to act out the act that will result in them.

And it does so by selecting against behaviors that don't result in offspring. Reproduction isn't something advanced like speech or tool-making, it's critical, essential, and foundational to the rest of TENS. You're arguing that Roosh's argument is irrelevant b/c evolution doesn't separate sex & reproduction; but Roosh is arguing that the circuitry to deliberately choose not to reproduce shouldn't exist at all, because it is exactly the same as choosing to have sex with a tree.

Anonymous Koanic June 04, 2015 3:33 PM  

"So basically, you gleaned one book, took it has gospel, and now use it to pose in grandeur fashion as unassailable fact? "

"Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them."

Blogger Nobody June 04, 2015 3:36 PM  

Nor did they reciprocate.

Blogger Noah B #120 June 04, 2015 3:38 PM  

"And laughed my ass off and realised, yes. Yes. THAT is what I call accurate peer review.

This is how science works"

I fucking love science

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 3:42 PM  

but Roosh is arguing that the circuitry to deliberately choose not to reproduce shouldn't exist at all, because it is exactly the same as choosing to have sex with a tree.

Yes, his central argument seems sound. There should be no way that a behavior that chooses against procreation can have a genetic basis. So either TENS is completely wrong or another factor (such as viral) is causing the behavioral change.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 3:43 PM  

@alethiophile

But there was never any need to evolve an instinct against preventing conception deliberately

False. Surely you've heard of anal, oral, self-stimulation, and homosexuality?

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 3:44 PM  

@alethiophile

There's also sex w/ non-reproductively compatible species, sex w/ reproductively immature members of your own species, and sex w/ inanimate objects (e.g. hollow logs)

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 3:46 PM  

and sex w/ inanimate objects (e.g. hollow logs)

Good lord, now you're going to bring out all the tree fetishists.

OpenID simplytimothy June 04, 2015 3:47 PM  

Good read. Thanks.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 04, 2015 3:53 PM  

Something to consider. If the US lost 80% of its population, an amount equivalent to all but the worst conceivable apocalypses, it would still have more people than the UK.

If it lost 90% which is what I would guess is about would be lost in an an unrestricted hydrogen bomb warfare, we'd be about as populated as Canada .

Assuming reasonable levels of property destruction and a basic ability for the remnant to hold land, the surviving population would be fine.

Your biggest threat aside from remaining bits of dangerous tech and foreign invasion would be an R population bloom of raiders and once they were dealt with and once people adjusted to farming and scavenging along with limited localized production would be historically filthy rich and would quite easily recover maybe even grow in a few generations.

Now the getting there process would suck and the odds of being skull #12356792 on the skull pile are quite high a post-apoc society would not be "and end forever" but a reboot . No wonder its a popular meme.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 3:58 PM  

@A. B. Prosper

We're already 1/5 the population of China. We don't need no more culling over here.

Blogger Danby June 04, 2015 3:59 PM  

I'm not a Darwinist or advocate of ENS, for scientific reasons. I don't believe in evolutionary psych or sociobiology because I prefer my faery tales more believable.

That said, Roosh really doesn't get evolution.

Essentially what has happened is that, thanks to birth control, we have entered into an environmental crisis, much like an extended drought. Micro evolution is going on right now, in which traits that were previously advantageous (intelligence, academic diligence, low time preference) have become a reproductive disadvantage.

What will happen over the long term is either that the "crack ho squatting out babies" overwhelm the population, or specific behaviors and ideologies that counteract the reproductive disadvantage will develop.

The end of civilization is certainly a possibility, but my money is on the latter.

For examples, if not proof, talk to some traditionalist Catholic or conservative Evangelical homeschoolers.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar June 04, 2015 4:02 PM  

Science stopped being science in the 1930s when certain people were fleeing Germany and brought their Frankfurt School to people who were ignorant of the Shill Game they'd been playing in Europe. Why anyone would want to believe the crackpot theory of a Beekeeper with a degree in Botany as stupid as Evo-lution is a great mystery that shall be debated for Centuries.
If you want to follow a crackpot theory with no evidence then why not the Hollow Earth Theory? That one has a chance of being true.
Those poindexters in the lab have been altering genes for decades trying to find anything to support that crackpot beekeeper and they haven't found anything yet. Messing up the DNA of fruitflies breeds fruitflies with mutations like more legs or even none, but they're all still just fruitflies. Science is supposed to find evidence and then use it to form theories. Having A Priori beliefs is Religion, not Science. Darwinism is a Cult!

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 4:05 PM  

Danby
Essentially what has happened is that, thanks to birth control, we have entered into an environmental crisis, much like an extended drought.

And something like it may have happened . The population declines, mass migration, punitive taxation including "bachelor taxes" were all distinct features of the latter Roman empire. The notion that a natural contraceptive /abortifacient was so much in demand that the plant went extinct is very interesting.

Anonymous I-evolve June 04, 2015 4:06 PM  

"Western society is now dysgenic"

How?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 04, 2015 4:07 PM  

The plant in question was Silphium, hopefully this link will come through.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 4:07 PM  

@Danby

Roosh deals w/ your objection in the paragraph that beings "If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, ..."

Blogger Thordaddy June 04, 2015 4:09 PM  

The great puzzle is that Western self-annihilation falsifies modern evolutionary theory and PROVES God-ordained free will.

Roosh's next logical step -- now that he has accepted collective self-annihilation as falsifying evolution -- is to accept, AT LEAST, some individuals in possession of God-ordained free will and others totally lacking such "thing" BY CHOICE. At some point in the near future, "man" will differentiate into a class of free willed men and a class human-like suboptimal AI.

Blogger Mastermind June 04, 2015 4:15 PM  

"But let's not do this in pieces. What is everything you need to understand evolution?"

I don't need anything to understand it because I already understand it. In general, I would say you need:

1 Intelligence
2 Basic understanding of genetics (and I mean really, really basic)
3a Ability to approach the subject with a desire to understand rather than a desire to combat
3b Ability to come to terms with unpleasant conclusions about morality

3a and 3b are both under 3 because they both add up to a failure of mental state rather than logic or knowledge. Conservative Christians generally struggle with 3a while liberals/sjws struggle with 3b. I think Vox meets 1 and 2, is at least in range of 3b, but fails abysmally with 3a. His stance towards evolution is akin to Dawkins' stance towards religion. Even when he can appreciate some elements of it his brain is wired to use his intelligence to combat the idea rather than honestly comprehend it. This is not an uncommon problem and one of the reasons why nobody should ever accept an authority's proclamations on the basis of their IQ.

Blogger Mastermind June 04, 2015 4:17 PM  

""Western society is now dysgenic"

How?"

Fails to reproduce and subsidizes rather than competes with outgroups.

Anonymous Native Baltimoron June 04, 2015 4:18 PM  

The Calhoun rat experiments suggest that social animals have real problems when their environment gets out of scale. For humans, limiting the number of close relationships in one's life to around Dunbar's number is probably salutary - the problem is we have "friendships" that aren't, facilitated by technology and a breakdown in the rules that allow more impersonal relationships to function well - etiquette is an important social lubricant. Of course, leftists have been pushing for decades to dismantle every single rule they can get their hands on, greatly exacerbating the problems caused by urbanization and atomization of society.

Complex social behaviors, like human culture, can change within the lifespan of an individual, and can certainly influence whether or not someone survives and has children. As Vox has pointed out, religion seems to be a powerful cultural antidote to the reduced fecundity correlated with intelligence. So, no, descent with modification doesn't really describe what's going on in the West right now, but we could certainly predict that alleles associated with religious belief will be more prevalent in future generations, because secular fecundity is below replacement.

Which, you might say, is just another way of saying that the future belongs to those who show up. Evolution by descent with modification is a partial explanation for the observed diversity of living organisms and the remarkable fundamental similarities between them. It can be used to formulate hypotheses, and holds up well given what we know about the molecular biology of heredity.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 4:19 PM  

@Mastermind

What unpleasant conclusions about morality would you say belief in evolution leads to?

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 04, 2015 4:22 PM  

It depends on who get culled Stephan . About half the population of the US is basically worthless.

Also China is well below replacement themselves and an ecological basket case. In the end they either shrink down, move to Africa, take Siberia or get into a nuclear war anyway. Close to them here, reptraite many and maintain a solid naval defense and we'll be fine.

Russia has bigger troubles but they are the ones to handle them, not us,

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 4:28 PM  

Stephen,
And it does so by selecting against behaviors that don't result in offspring.
No. It doesn't. Pay attention: third time now: nature is a lazy bitch. She does so by getting you to have enough behaviour to do half the job. The fucking part. That's it. Because that's all that's needed for reproduction in the natural state.


Reproduction isn't something advanced

Precisely. ALL that's required to make it happen is the fucking part.
like speech or tool-making, it's critical, essential, and foundational to the rest of TENS.
No. It's critical to reproduction. That's all.
You're overcomplicating something simple. Without wanting to be insulting, it's very much a midwit problem.

Blogger MachoKing June 04, 2015 4:30 PM  

Exactly.

Blogger Mastermind June 04, 2015 4:34 PM  

"What unpleasant conclusions about morality would you say belief in evolution leads to?"

It's not what it leads to that is unpleasant for many. Rather, it's the philosophical underpinning that leads to evolution that is unpleasant. Namely, might makes right. People (or at least Westerners) don't like the idea that both moral and practical goods are decided by power. Most atheists and liberals in general in particular hate it because it runs counter to their egalitarian delusions.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 4:36 PM  

@A.B. Prosper

China would boom again if a significant portion of their population moved here after we dropped to 20% of our current levels. Say what you will, the coolies know how to work.

Blogger Tommy Hass June 04, 2015 4:53 PM  

"In simple form, Roosh isn't arguing that 100 bangs = 1 offspring is better or worse than 50 bangs = 1 offspring, he's pointing out that a lifetime of bangs = 0 offspring is impossible, because none of your ancestors had those genes.

In more subtle form, Roosh is pointing out that after 3.5 billion years of natural selection, there should be no species or group that voluntarily delays its average age to first offspring, at least in the presence of resource abundance (the west is resource abundant. legal issues etc don't exist as far as evolution is concerned). But yet, the west is at or below replacement fertility."

In the past, all that was needed to reproduce was a healthy sex drive. Now, with modern society and it's influences, simple sex is no longer sufficient.

The reason why the "delaying/not having children" genes have not been weeded out is because it was historically not possible to control fertility. Choosing not to have kids hasn't been weeded out because in the past, YOU COULDN'T CHOOSE. Sex=kids, in the past.

You see people having sex right? QED.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 04, 2015 5:02 PM  

SW, I admire the Chinese people but I do not wish to share lands with them and an 80% decline in the US population would still leave us enough population to keep them out. I'd rather about a 50% decline myself though which could leave us where we were about 1970 or so

I want ideally a US nation for European peoples and European peoples only with possibly a smattering of others, 80-90% or more White if possible.

Another thing, all the Arbeit Mach Frei -- Protestant Work Ethic bullshit needs to go. We produce far too much to consume already, work too hard and barely have enough time to enjoy life,

If we want larger families one easy way to get them is to ensure wages are a bigger part of GDP and that people have more time to enjoy them . When one parent is working maybe 30 hours a week max and other a few hours if at all the opportunity costs for children and the stress level is much lower

What we have is a system that harness everyone to the plow to churn more money to satisfy money addicts , meddlers and an enormously bloated state.

That needs to stop. In truth if our per capita GDP dropped but was better distributed , at least as well as it was circa 1970 which is double the percentage of wages, we'd be far better off.

Technically the US would be poorer, yes but the average working person, the people that actually make society run would be better off.

The only way I know to do that though is an untested version of distributism and closed borders. Its not been done before and frankly might not work.

Blogger Danby June 04, 2015 5:15 PM  

Shorter mastermind;
Evolution is so obvious that the only reason you haven't accepted it is because you're either pathetically stupid or you have a base reason to reject it without considering it fully.

@Mastermind,
Have you ever considered that it has been considered at a greater depth than you have bothered with and rejected as unscientific and, frankly, no more than a just-so story thumb-in-the-eye to Christianity? That a great many people, including, dare I say, you, believe in evolution because it's an excuse to call people who disagree stupid and/or willfully ignorant?

Blogger Rabbi B June 04, 2015 5:38 PM  

"Evolution is so obvious that the only reason you haven't accepted it is because you're either pathetically stupid or you have a base reason to reject it without considering it fully."

But evolution is so fundamentally easy to disprove as it fails spectacularly when it attempts to answer the most basic question that even a five-year old can answer.

It no less obvious to me that the only reason you haven't rejected it is for the same reasons you just posited.

Blogger Thordaddy June 04, 2015 5:43 PM  

What Roosh understands is that he is still anti-Supremacy in general and an anti-white Supremacist in particular AND this does not psychologically sit well with his own self-perception as an Alpha-male pick up artist. He can sense that there is a fundamental contradiction between his perception of self and his belief in anti-Supremacy. He can sense that there is contradiction in his love for his Alpha-pua self and his hatred for the genuine white Supremacist. Roosh is on the precipice of real conversion and he knows this.

Blogger Danby June 04, 2015 5:48 PM  

Ummm @Rabbi

Please read my comment for meaning.

Anonymous Beau June 04, 2015 5:51 PM  

People (or at least Westerners) don't like the idea that both moral and practical goods are decided by power.

Creator, King, Redeemer, Truth-teller, and at the parousia - Conqueror, every metric Man sets up to reject Christ, our Lord and Savior overcomes.

Blogger IM2L844 June 04, 2015 6:02 PM  

Differentiating between Microevolution and Macroevolution is critical to having any sort of reasonable discussion about evolution at all, but it is commonly glossed over by both sides.

Anonymous Roosh Is A Fraud June 04, 2015 6:05 PM  

“Roosh is a sharp and interesting man.”

He is a con artist who embraces anti-Godly masculinity and sells his wares to a willing crowd of acolytes, including "Christian" men, who lap up his every word to have sex with sluts and justify it as "when in Rome..." He is a social pariah on par with SJW’s, yet his audience champions him as some sort of intellect worthy of our admiration. Because anti-feminism.


“We are being deliberately brainwashed into not wanting to reproduce. Young women ride the carousel because that's what they've been told is the cool thing to do by their idols, the cool kids on TV, their teachers, their professors, their "cool aunts", and so forth.”

The brainwashing in part comes from the PUA’s who tout their philosophy that it is moral to overload a woman’s amygdala, sex her up, and dump her. Rinse and repeat. Because feminism makes me do it.


“Having said all that, I'm a Christian...”



Are you a Christian to call out sin in the flesh? To renounce Satan and his works?


“Roosh is growing up.”

No, he is a juvenile. Only if he shutters his site, renounces PUA entirely, converts to Christianity, and embarks on a crusade with equal vim and vigor like his “bang” tours to destroy the anti-Godly masculine empire he in part helped to build will he be on the road to spiritual recovery.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 6:15 PM  

@tommy

See my comments to alethiophile

Anonymous Koanic June 04, 2015 6:16 PM  

Also, Vox has stated that natural selection is either tautological or (somethingbad). This is false: natural selection cannot be a tautology. A tautology is always true by definition. Natural selection does not meet this standard. If someone intervenes in every generation of a species by killing all the children and then cloning a random selection of adults, natural selection no longer applies to that species. So while natural selection is a very obvious truth, it is not a tautology.

"There should be no way that a behavior that chooses against procreation can have a genetic basis."

Completely false. Mouse city experiment. Wolf packs - only alphas breed. Rabbits re-absorbing young. Totally dumb. There are many times and conditions when an animals long term reproductive strategy is maximized by not breeding short term, or when a species' interest is maximized by certain members never breeding. Some idiots here are writing as if there's no difference in complexity between a virus and a mammal.

Blogger automatthew June 04, 2015 6:21 PM  

Koanic, you're arguing with Popper here, not just Vox. "Survival of the fittest" is the tautology in question.

Blogger YIH June 04, 2015 6:21 PM  

Nemo Maximus:
You want to see the rat city looks like with humans?
That would be Japan, one of the world's lowest birthrates.
Newer generations born in the now dysfunctional mouse utopia became withdrawn, spending their days grooming obsessively and dedicating their time solely to eating , drinking and sleeping.
The Japanese have a word for that, Hikkomori.
I tend to focus on Japan because it's (still) a prosperous, well-educated, first-world country.
With some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and no immigration to speak of - and almost no Africans.

Blogger automatthew June 04, 2015 6:21 PM  

Fake Stupid Name: "

Are you a Christian to call out sin in the flesh? To renounce Satan and his works?"

Are you holier than I?

Blogger automatthew June 04, 2015 6:22 PM  

Also, are you King A?

Blogger automatthew June 04, 2015 6:22 PM  

I want my name back, you son of a bitch.

Blogger Harsh June 04, 2015 6:31 PM  

"There should be no way that a behavior that chooses against procreation can have a genetic basis."

Completely false. Mouse city experiment. Wolf packs - only alphas breed. Rabbits re-absorbing young. Totally dumb. There are many times and conditions when an animals long term reproductive strategy is maximized by not breeding short term, or when a species' interest is maximized by certain members never breeding. Some idiots here are writing as if there's no difference in complexity between a virus and a mammal.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about a short-term strategy but a long-term behavior that's common throughout society. How does such a thing get passed genetically?

Blogger Thordaddy June 04, 2015 6:38 PM  

Descent with modification....

If "we" never had modification, "we" would still have "evolution" in the most fundamental sense. Descent. Evolution = Descent. And "descent" NOW EQUALS collective self-annihilation. Ergo, evolution = collective self-annihilation = PROOF of God-ordained free will IN THE genuine white Supremacist.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 04, 2015 6:39 PM  

Why anyone would want to believe the crackpot theory of a Beekeeper with a degree in Botany as stupid as Evo-lution is a great mystery

... says a guy who almost certainly thinks a carpenter had all the secrets of life.

I know most commenters here are wedded to their caricatures of biology (much easier to dismiss than the real thing), but would it KILL you to acknowledge that evolution itself had been bandied about for decades, and Darwin's big theoretical contribution was natural selection as a major force for change?  There's really no good way to explain the evolutionary radiation of Galapagos finches into forms for niches which are occupied by much more varied species in the rest of the world.

If you want to follow a crackpot theory with no evidence then why not the Hollow Earth Theory? That one has a chance of being true.

Yeah, right.  A theory that requires rocks with the compressive strength of scrith "has a chance of being true".  And you wonder why scientists are sick and tired of debating or even hearing religious zealots?  They're afraid of losing IQ points into such intellectual black holes.

3b Ability to come to terms with unpleasant conclusions about morality

That is a profound insight, though Vox's abbreviation "because feelbad" is very pithy.

Differentiating between Microevolution and Macroevolution is critical to having any sort of reasonable discussion about evolution

Right there is the mental block.  Right there is the notion that "kinds" are like Platonic ideals, and a species "knows" when it has strayed far enough from its origins and go no further because "macroevolution" is forbidden.

I'm not talking about a short-term strategy but a long-term behavior that's common throughout society. How does such a thing get passed genetically?

It doesn't.  It gets passed economically and memetically.  Dialing back your family size when conditions are hard is a trait of people with foresight; the Irish used to use very late marriage, for example.  Once this pro-survival trait exists, it can be hijacked for genocidal purposes by a sufficiently clever adversary.

Blogger Danby June 04, 2015 6:42 PM  

@MrRational
You're obviously a scientist, right? Knowing so much about Science! and all,
What is your PHD in? What is your area of research?

Anonymous Edward Lee June 04, 2015 6:44 PM  

There's nothing new under the sun, Vox. This exact same thing happened when the Romans became too self-indulgent and allowed themselves to become soft... whereupon the barbarians carved them into nothing. Neither you nor Roosh should fall into that egotistical trap that deludes you into believing that you're the first brain to ever formulate this thought. Talk about similar historical cycles during your Brainstorm session. Cite prior civilizational decline. Maybe then you can get some of the higher intellects in the room to devise a strategy - if not to avoid the coming collapse - then at least to soften the blow for we monks who have to carry knowledge through the new dark ages to the new restoration.

Anonymous MendoScot June 04, 2015 6:49 PM  

Also, Vox has stated that natural selection is either tautological or (somethingbad). This is false: natural selection cannot be a tautology.

It is. That which will survive, has survived.

Que será, será,
Whatever will be, will be...

Blogger Stephen Ward June 04, 2015 7:01 PM  

@Giuseppe

Sex has been separated from reproduction since the tab went into the slot. The minimum behavior required then, includes the decision to seek offspring.

Anonymous Jay Will June 04, 2015 7:53 PM  

Remind me when he disowns "Bang Europe".

His forum is saturated with race SJW's. Will the race question be brought in? Your backing the wrong horse, mark my words. I'd bet islam before Christ.

OpenID ymarsakar June 04, 2015 8:53 PM  

Mortification of the flesh is a purer method to breaking one's soul from the shackles of Slavery 3.0 aka the Leftist perfect utopia.

Childish fear or dependence upon the government's welfare forms chains so strong, that it becomes invisible. Fear of social ostracism and fear of being rejected from society, will suburn the Will to the point where a human will do anything, obey any order, that comes from their Authorities.

That is not freedom nor is it true independence. But in order for the spirit to unshackle from the mind and body, the instincts, the hungers, the desires, the fears, must be chained to the Will. Virtues like courage or toughness, mental or physical, is what makes a person, not their titles or the "respect" given by popular awards and cliques.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 04, 2015 8:53 PM  

Stephen Ward,
What is wrong with you?
Is it so hard for your midwit ego to understand that in the natural state, sex leads to procreation?
That's it. No further decision beyond "i want to fuck her" is required. None. Beyond. That.
Do you really think chimps cogitate about the long term effects of their need to hit that pussy?
Or that rabbits do?
Wake up.
You are wrong.
Roosh is wrong too.
Get over it. And learn from it.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar June 04, 2015 9:45 PM  

So now I'm a religious zealot because I question the dogma of a beekeeper. Maybe you should hurry off and have your brothers spank those unholy doubts from your sloping skull? Am I a denier because I believe my thermometer instead of Algore the Senator who thinks he invented the internet? I'd love it if it was warmer here, its been fucking cold lately. Tell me again how the Earth is burning up when I'm using my heater for nine months.

Anonymous Roosh Is A Fraud June 04, 2015 10:03 PM  

"Are you holier than I?"

The more appropriate question is do you denounce sin?


"Also, are you King A?"

I am a Christian who is calling out a man who is wicked yet being embraced as an ally in the culture wars, hiding behind his interpretation of natural selection in part to justify his conduct.


"I want my name back, you son of a bitch."

Who are you talking to???

Anonymous Koanic June 04, 2015 10:21 PM  

"Koanic, you're arguing with Popper here, not just Vox. "Survival of the fittest" is the tautology in question."

I don't care if I'm arguing with St. Paul. Survival of the fittest is also not a tautology, just a very obvious truth. For example, if a deliberate intervener randomly selects half of a species for immortality on life-support and the other half for immediate execution, survival of the fittest has ceased to apply to that species.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 04, 2015 10:33 PM  

For example, if a deliberate intervener randomly selects half of a species for immortality on life-support and the other half for immediate execution, survival of the fittest has ceased to apply to that species.

Nah, that only means lucky is the new measure of fitness.

Blogger Anonymous June 04, 2015 11:05 PM  

This is Koanic.

Sheesh, it's like nobody's teaching kids these days the difference between a tautology and a synthetic a-posteriori truth.

Also, the image comment captcha is broken in Pale Moon. It overflows so I can't pick images in the bottom row. Pale Moon + noscript, all scripts individually allowed on this site. Tested enable scripts globally, same result. Posted this using Chrome and the Google (anonymous) login.

"Nah, that only means lucky is the new measure of fitness."

No problem. We modify the experiment so that half the survivors are eternally tortured. Now they're not lucky. Still not a tautology.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 04, 2015 11:15 PM  

I am a Christian who is calling out a man who is wicked yet being embraced as an ally in the culture wars, hiding behind his interpretation of natural selection in part to justify his conduct.

Since when did identifying the patently obvious (a man of the world is a man of the world) constitute a "call out?"

I'm ignorant to the strategic merit of your position. I don't understand how allying with Roosh against a mutual adversary reasonably impacts Christians in a negative manner. The man has not been propped up by Christians (here or elsewhere) as morally righteous. Rather, he has been properly identified as a man flying a different banner against a mutual enemy.

I do, however, see the folly of picking and choosing allies against a wholly unified foe, having watched that strategy practically gift territory to progressivism and its various schools of thought my entire life.

Also, since when is Roosh a con artist?

Blogger kurt9 June 04, 2015 11:28 PM  

Western society is now dysgenic as well as dyscivic.

Sounds like an argument in favor of eugenics. CRISPR is a very powerful technique that will help drive it.

Blogger kurt9 June 04, 2015 11:42 PM  

Gregory Cochran has argued in his book that humans have been under evolutionary pressure over the past 10,000 years and that this pressure continues to exist today. For Vox and Roosh to be correct, something would have had to end this pressure in recent times. The most plausible cause is the industrial revolution which has occurred only within the past 150 years or so, which is a very short period of time (6 generations) in terms of evolutionary change. That human behavior has changed so dramatically in such a short time implies that the human psyche (and neurobiology) is a lot more malleable than is assumed by advocates of HBD and biological innateness of most behavior. Yet we know for the most part, the human mind is not a blank-slate the way the liberals assume it to be. This suggests that much of behavioral traits is indeed innately biological, but not necessarily genetic. This is where epigenetics (gene expression control based on methylation patterns) may be the primary determinant of behavioral traits. The recent failure of the BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute) to identify any strong correlates between any genes and IQ also suggests this hypothesis.

Its possible that much of these traits are set in the neurobiology of the developing fetus by the biochemical environment of the womb. This lends support to those working to develop exowombs to allow people to have kids without the messiness of pregnancy and child-birth.

BTW, I fail to understand how anyone who considers dysgenics to be a long-term societal problem would not support the wide-spread commercialization of eugenics technology.

Blogger Danby June 04, 2015 11:50 PM  

@Roosh is a Friend

Repeat after me...
There are no enemies on the right.
No enemies on the right.
No enemies on the right.
Attacking others who are firing at the correct target ensures that you will be defeated. Doing so knowingly means you are actually firing in the wrong direction. That makes you a target, asshat.

And about your wonderful ideological purity, your oh so precious feud against Roosh, we don't care.

You've made yourself a target. You are one of the enemy if you don't knock this shit off.

Blogger Cee June 05, 2015 12:25 AM  

BTW, I fail to understand how anyone who considers dysgenics to be a long-term societal problem would not support the wide-spread commercialization of eugenics technology.

Because it treats human life as a commodity, and that's disgusting.

Blogger kurt9 June 05, 2015 12:44 AM  

It seems to me that any valuation in differences in human traits between individuals is treatment of human life as a commodity. When you apply for a job, you're treated as a commodity. When you go out to a bar/night club or chat up women at the gym, you're treating human life as a commodity. I fail to see how eugenics is conceptually any different from any of these other things.

Eugenics is nothing more than the antidote to dysgenics.

Blogger Danby June 05, 2015 12:46 AM  

Hey, Boys and Girls, can you spot the gamma tells in Kurt9's post?

Anonymous JRL June 05, 2015 1:06 AM  

For example, if a deliberate intervener randomly selects half of a species for immortality on life-support and the other half for immediate execution, survival of the fittest has ceased to apply to that species.

Koanic, a tautology doesn't have to be universally true, just self-referentially true. Survival of the fittest = those that survive, survive. Survival is fitness. The phrase is a tautology.

It's also a shorthand description of natural selection. It's obvious that one-off events can (randomly or not) determine who survives and that no special trait would necessarily be selected for in that circumstance.

Blogger Cee June 05, 2015 1:07 AM  

If you mean eugenics in the simple old-fashion sense of "encourage people with high-quality genes to breed, and gently discourage those with low-quality from doing so" rather than "produce more people with high-quality genes by any means necessary, and prevent those with low-quality genes from doing so by same," then we don't have an argument.

But if you're in the second camp, I'm afraid I cannot help you if you see "offering work for hire," "chatting up the ladies," "engineering a baby," and "involuntarily sterilization" as all being actions in the same category.

Anonymous AbuDhabi June 05, 2015 2:52 AM  

>>My best guess is that a lot of humanity is illicit sex born.

You're wrong. Unless by "a lot", you mean "3%, tops". Look at any non-paternity study.

Anonymous AbuDhabi June 05, 2015 3:45 AM  

>>The reason why the "delaying/not having children" genes have not been weeded out is because it was historically not possible to control fertility. Choosing not to have kids hasn't been weeded out because in the past, YOU COULDN'T CHOOSE. Sex=kids, in the past.

Yes, you bloody well could. Below is a list of low-tech methods to achieve sex, or an approximation of it, without conception:
- sodomy (homo- and heterosexual),
- oral stimulation,
- masturbation,
- pedophilia,
- zoophilia,
- coitus interruptus,
- silphium (until it went extinct),
- natural skin condoms,
- sex in infertile periods,
- sex with an already pregnant woman (can't get more pregnant, can she?).

Of course, some of these have relatively high failure rates, which could result in pregnancy. For this, infanticide (pre- and post-birth) can be used.

The point is that if pre-modern people wanted to have non-reproductive sex, they could very well get it. The question is, why didn't they then, and why do we do now?

Anonymous AbuDhabi June 05, 2015 4:10 AM  

>>The reason why the "delaying/not having children" genes have not been weeded out is because it was historically not possible to control fertility. Choosing not to have kids hasn't been weeded out because in the past, YOU COULDN'T CHOOSE. Sex=kids, in the past.

No. There were plenty of methods to achieve non-reproductive sex without access to any technology. (I had posted a brief list, but it either got eaten by a grue, or got deleted; I suppose it might have been in poor taste and giving people ideas.) The point is that people did have options to engage in non-reproductive sexual behaviour, but chose not to. Whereas we of modernity, have both the option and do engage in it, to our peril.

Blogger Anonymous June 05, 2015 5:00 AM  

This is Koanic.

JRL, please give me an example of any statement that is self-referentially true but not universally true.

"Survival of the fittest = those that survive, survive. Survival is fitness. The phrase is a tautology."

Not true. It means those good at surviving survive, which is not always the case. Evolutionary biology even has a word for such scenarios - r selection.

I am familiar with the argument, and its rightful purpose, which is to demonstrate that evolution has no telos. A valid conclusion does not equal valid premises. You will have to do better than simply repeating the naked assertion.

Abu wrote: "There were plenty of methods to achieve non-reproductive sex without access to any technology. "

Yes, and the evolutionary impetus to reproduce is competent to overcome those methods, particularly in the small tribe societies for which humans are evolved. The methods available now are qualitatively different and mostly lack evolutionary countermeasures, yet even so they have not halted reproduction, merely slowed it in high IQ whites and Japanese living in the imperial decline phase - which has always been a low birthrate phase anyway. Their long term dysgenic impact on intelligence (intra and inter racial) is far more serious than any temporary dip in population.

Roosh's personal epiphany is valid, because his previous life philosophy was fairly shallow, but it does not represent an intellectual breakthrough for anyone but him. Natural selection is most certainly still occurring in humans, and the largest effect is probably still what it always has been in humans since the dawn of agriculture - adaptation to modern foods.

Anonymous AbuDhabi June 05, 2015 5:27 AM  

Koanic: I'm not sure I understand. Roosh appears to be saying that evolution no longer applies, whereas as I understand it, it does. It's just that he and many of us happen to be in the group that is selected against by the mechanism, through our own fault.

Blogger Anonymous June 05, 2015 5:38 AM  

Abu, you seemed to be contrasting an ancient moral choice to reproduce with a modern immoral one not to, which I feel places a false emphasis on free will.

- koanic

Anonymous AbuDhabi June 05, 2015 5:49 AM  

Koanic: I don't think so? I'm using "our" in the collective meaning. It might not be anyone's fault in particular, but the sum total of our conditions yields many individually choosing non-reproductive behaviours, due to pressures and factors beyond their control (overarching ideology, social conformism, etc).

What I'm trying to say is that Roosh's argument that evolution no longer applies to humans is as absurd as claiming that gravity no longer applies to humans because we've invented flight and commonly use it.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit June 05, 2015 5:53 AM  

Low reproduction rates in Western society are probably the result of female equality, but only if female equality is the same thing as SJW. Ancient Astronaut and intersectional gender theorists say, "yes, but I disagree."

Ideally, we women would obtain enough of a working education to identify the handful of freaks destined to become the next Rosalind Chase, marry young, have several kids, and in our 40s (assuming the aptitude existed, and the desire) pursue a career. Or 50s. If childbirth doesn't kill us are productive years are longer than men's.

The idiotarian feminists convinced several generations of Western Women (thank you, Marxists!) that "equality" means "exactly the same" as men. The stupid that followed, is, as they say, history.

OpenID simplytimothy June 05, 2015 6:32 AM  

Natural selection is most certainly still occurring in humans, and the largest effect is probably still what it always has been in humans since the dawn of agriculture - adaptation to modern foods.

Big-Mac Man.

Anonymous RedBane June 05, 2015 7:14 AM  

More fundamentally, our current behavior in the western world, underscores our true ontological reality and purpose, which, as specially created beings, is to know God, and reproduce other souls to enjoy this eternal, divine conjunction. Our current behavior then, would appear to be anti-Christ in its response to our created reality, and therefore Satanic. Eschewing reality is obviously manifesting in many social ills.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 05, 2015 11:29 AM  

BTW, I fail to understand how anyone who considers dysgenics to be a long-term societal problem would not support the wide-spread commercialization of eugenics technology.

Because Unintended Consequences.

It's a lot easier to break things than to fix things. Have you thought of what that means when you irreversibly modify your own DNA in a way that affects all your future progeny?

"Ooops! Guess you're infertile now. Good thing you didn't want kids, right?"

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 05, 2015 12:45 PM  

"Nah, that only means lucky is the new measure of fitness."
----------------
No problem. We modify the experiment so that half the survivors are eternally tortured. Now they're not lucky. Still not a tautology.


Which does not change that they survived. Why did they survive? Lucky enough to be randomly chosen. (And now they live eternally, even if in torment. How's that for survival?)

They survived, they're the fittest. The ones that did not survive? Not the fittest. To disprove the survival of the fittest, you need to show that the fittest did not survive. This is not possible because "fit" is determined by the result of survival.

Anonymous Teenage Jail June 05, 2015 3:22 PM  

"Natural selection" is nothing more than "the future belongs to those who show up for it". Evolution by natural selection is nothing more than "heritable traits will be more or less common in the future, to the extent to which they, in the whole context of life, help or hurt their possessors in producing descendants to show up for that future."

This is happening in all life, whether the successful heritable traits are judged on some external scale to be good, bad, or stupid. Whether or not this process can explain the entire development of life on Earth is another question.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar June 05, 2015 3:26 PM  

Nothing in our society is random. All those dark welfare breeders are not lucky at all. The Government is breeding dumb voters. Mexicans are not here to work, they're here to vote for Dictators called El Presidente Bush or Generalissimo Clinton.
Eugenics is either a policy or dysgenic is the result. Helping the stupid is not helping them and killing you. Charity is great when people have morals and a shame for taking handouts, but when they're stupid enough to believe you owe them for something that never happened to them or shameless enough to bum around because its all good or whatever, then you're 15 minutes from Armageddon. Are you getting it? Armageddon it!

Anonymous hungrytales June 05, 2015 5:03 PM  

This Roosh's piece reads to me like an elaborate proof for the existance of the soul (and by proxy - God). Fascinating.

Blogger Admiral James June 05, 2015 6:17 PM  

Wouldn't they just argue that the world is overpopulated and all this offspring limiting behavior is part of evolution?

Blogger Anonymous June 05, 2015 6:30 PM  

Ok, Abu, we have no disagreement. Cheers.

Sir Hamster: Good times. I guessed you would double down on luck as a real property. But despite thinking up several versions of the expected straight-man reply, I never dreamed you'd actually defend a life of eternal torture in hell as a "fortunate, favored or blessed" result.

Sometimes the hamster's head is just a bit further up its own digestive tract that anyone could have anticipated, eh?

Before you get offended, please assume that I've redefined all the words in this comment to be tautologically true, without any change to their original dictionary definitions. Go luck yourself.

- Koanic

Anonymous Roosh Is A Fraud June 05, 2015 7:50 PM  

“Repeat after me...there are no enemies on the right.

So calling into significant question one’s moral turpitude equates into me being an enemy? That’s a classic gamma tell on your part.


“Attacking others who are firing at the correct target ensures that you will be defeated.”

Roosh is purposely gaming women. For his own personal pleasure. And getting paid to be a cad in the process. Imagine if one of his acolytes attempted to game your precious by tickling her amygdala. You would be livid for his efforts to be promiscuous outside of marriage. Why would you defend his clear anti-Christian behavior? Because anti-feminism.

The larger issue deals with souls. Which side are you on, Danby?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 05, 2015 9:12 PM  

I never dreamed you'd actually defend a life of eternal torture in hell as a "fortunate, favored or blessed" result.

That's irrelevant to whether they survived, and the metric they survived by. If they survive by random chance, they survived by luck. Whether or not they are eternally tormented afterwards does not change that it was "survival of the fittest".

Before you get offended, please assume that I've redefined all the words in this comment to be tautologically true, without any change to their original dictionary definitions. Go luck yourself.

aww u mad bro?

Anonymous Porphyry June 06, 2015 12:16 AM  

since when did the comments section on this blog become such a pigsty? It appears that Roosh and Vox are disagreeing with the thesis that evolution could give rise to current behavioral patterns. To disprove such a thesis they would need to address how evolution is qualitatively limited in its ability to produce said behaviors. Which is extremely difficult considering that evolution (under the current interpretation) is not qualitatively limited to produce much. With the exception of extreme divergence from reproductive patterns over long periods of time. In short you've got the first but not the second. Meaning this evidence alone is insufficient to overturn the theory that behavior is the product of ens.

Blogger Stephen Ward June 06, 2015 9:16 AM  

I concede then Giuseppe

Blogger Anonymous June 06, 2015 4:41 PM  

"Which is extremely difficult considering that evolution (under the current interpretation) is not qualitatively limited to produce much. "

That's true. The problem is that the range of behaviors evolution wouldn't generate largely overlaps with the range of behaviors that causes extinction. We would need to observe these behaviors occurring in the natural environment, which is hard because such a species or group wouldn't be around long. And even if we did observe it, extinction is a part of evolution. Thus, practically speaking, pure behavior analysis unbacked by biological or historical analysis is a very poor way to falsify evolution.

Nevertheless it would be possible to do so. For example, if jackal-headed hominids built and guarded large pyramids with no utility or pseudo-utility to themselves, that would be strong evidence that they were a genetically engineered servitor race. (Note that this example doesn't constitute a deviation from standard reproductive patterns, which was the only possibility you allowed.)

Evolution, like thermodynamics, can do many weird things locally without breaking itself. Rivers can flow upstream. Uncles can be gay. Humans can laugh, and animals can play.

The interesting question is whether humans are a genetically engineered servitor race. Simply listing the sicknesses of the various modern-day human mouse-city experiments without fitting them into some larger pattern doesn't do much to answer that question.

- Koanic

Blogger Gerard O'Neill June 07, 2015 2:50 AM  

How often do you trim your pubes? (asking for a friend)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts