Arsene

"Intelligent individuals do not resolve their conflicts using violence in the first place." Exactly, getting into violence is unintelligent way of resolving conflicts because it lowers both your chances and the chances of your opponent in survival->procreation. People who tend to escalate disputes into violence have rudimentary minds->brains->genes. So them getting into war and dying from war is called darwinism. I say, let people die from their rudimentary genes/behavior. If I would live in the middle-east, I wouldn't fight for anything, I would be a refugee and flee to the west. The fact that we tend to have wars is not good, it shows unintelligent we as species are. War is only good as long as I'm not in it? Exactly! Smart people will avoid war. Dumb people get attracted to it. I Don't know what you mean with bad and good evolution. Let me tell you something about all those domestic dog species, take for example the chihuahua, do you know how genetically inferior those dogs are? If you would leave them in nature, they would die out . The only reason why they are still around and why they have evolved to be so genetically inferior in first place is because of domestication, the evolutionary pressure on you is totally different if you are domesticated than the evolutionary pressure if you are free in nature. Take a species, rid the evolutionary pressures of nature by providing them food, protection and health care, do this for over a million years, bad mutations will remain in the genepool, release them back into nature, and they will become extinct. This is also what is happening to humans due to all the biomedical sciences allowing humans with all kinds of inferior traits to procreate, like for example females with very narrow hips, what would be the evolutionary reason to why we find females with very narrow hips ugly? Because females with very narrow hips are not able to push a child out naturally, having very narrow hips and being pragnant will result in a miscarriage and a maternal death. But because of fucking biomedical sciences we are allowing those genes of women with very narrow hips to procreate by performing a caeseraen section on them. Because of biomedical sciences we have removed the evolutionary pressure on woman with a bad morphology to reproduce. And this will result in filling the gene pool up with inferior genes that causes bad morphologies to reproduce. Why does evolution has no bearing on ethics? Never heard about the scientific field evolutionary ethics, and the science of morals? Evolution has to do with everything. Escalating disputes into violence is unethical because it lowers the chances of humanity to procreate, intelligent behavior/superior genes tend to resolve their disputes in much more intelligent ways.

I think that war boosts evolution, that war increases evolutionary pressure on unintelligence. If you were smart and would live in the middle east, you wouldn't risk your life for retarded ideologies. Retarded ideologies attract retarded people to die for their retarded ideologie. Natural selection. There are some belgian muslims who went to the middle east to fight for ISIS, what would their average IQ be? You get what I mean? Next to the fact that we had to survive in colder/rougher enviroments, do I think that this is why europeans score on average much higher on IQ tests than people from the middle east , simply because we had our wars in the past. Theirfore I think that war is good, it cleanses the shitty genes out of the genepool (unfortunately also some good genes, of non-violent intelligent people, but you have to look at the average). If you wan't humanity to be less violent, than violent people have to die first, and they will care for it themselves, they will have wars. Just like football hooligans (unfortunately do they not die).

I don't get how I am legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. "Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are accaptable". What self-contradictions are you talking about? I have a hard time following you. Anyway. I'm pretty sure that having a more free and capitalistic society will impose more evolutionary pressure on people who are unintelligent. If drugs would be legalized, the number of heroin addictions might rise, but that group of addictions will be filled with significantly below average IQ people, on the other hand, more intelligent people who are concious enough not to get addicted but want to try it out won't die from the bunk they get. I recognize quite often that in life, that Freedom and Safety have an inverse relationship. Where for the unintelligent it's better to guide them and take away their freedom for their own safety, but for the intelligent who know how to deal with the freedom, certain rules might limit them and decrease their amount of resources and chances of survival. What a socialistic society boils down to is taking away resources from the averagely intelligent to give it to the averagely unintelligent. I recognize that alot of our morals are based on increasing the amount of the gene pool instead of the quality of the gene pool. If you want the humanity to be smarter, living in an enviroment where it's harder for the uninteligent people to procreate will do that. If you want humanity to increase in amount, take away the evolutionary pressure on the unintelligent (by providing them resources from smarter people, and rules) will do that.

srs. It's just unacceptable that Shaniqua is making 10 kids just so her child benefits are adding up, its ruining the gene-pool. That's also why I am for example, pro legalization of all drugs, and gay acceptant,...

I was philosophizing about why we have sex so frequently, why we get frustrated if we don't, why some of us go to night clubs with hopes to get laid and why senseless fights happen so much when people go out, why people rape, why we devour so much energy just to have sex which isn't going to increase our offspring at all, which has no function besides it being hedonic. To know that, we have to know how our ancestors reproduced. By studying the sexual behavior and selection of our closest relatives the Chimpanzee's we have a fairly good representation of the sexual behavior and selection used to be for our ancestors about 2.8m years ago. Chimpanzee have sexual structure where the alpha male has the right to procreate with every female of the tribe, and to be the alpha male you'd have to win fights with the others. All you had to do was inseminate the females of your tribe and your offspring would be brought resources and protection by the mother and the whole tribe. (Poor beta chimpanzee's who had to hunt and offer protection for offspring that was not theirs) In this simple communitarian primitive society a strong fatherhood wasn't important. So back than, these frequent sexual needs we have and a strong libido, sexual alphaness and sexual aggression DID lead to more offspring, back than, being alpha or even raping females would lead to more offspring. Once a female was inseminated, you could just run off without consequences and the female could do nothing to prevent the pregnancy. It where those genes that filled the gene pool! Those specific genes which caused those specific neurological structures whereas those specific neurological structures caused those specific primitive sexual behaviors, were being spread! However, times have changed, we became much more intelligent, our society became much more complex and bigger, because of this, a strong fatherhood now IS crucial and superior for the upbringing of our children. Our society and the upbringing of our children isn't a communitarian bunch anymore but more individualistic. A woman chooses a man and they stay together for a very long period to provide care for the children instead of how our ancient ancestor used to do it: all man hunt together, but only a few of those men, the strongest alpha's, may procreate with all the females of the tribe. We are switching from a polygamous alpha-beta sexual structure to a monogamous sexual structure just like birds (which also stay together as a couple to care for their offspring together). The thing is that we still carry those primitive genes and nature. Isn't it an inferior trait that we put so much energy into having purely hedonic sex? Isn't this primitive nature of us working against us. Imagine you could live a perfect happy life without having to waste energy and hours just to have sex, instead only have sex when you plan to procreate, wouldn't that be a very much superior trait? I think that we are evolving towards this, this might sound like a very controversial hypothesis but I think that in the very long future, I don't know it can be another million years, that we will only have sex when we are planning to make a child. I compare this with my adopted Asian friend who suffers from eczema. Everytime goes to Malaysia his eczema is cured, but in Belgium he constantly has to apply lotion. That's because his genes are adapted to the humid climate of Malaysia and not the colder/drier climate of Belgium, so for this enviroment he has genetically inferior skin. And for him, the lotion is good, the fact that he needs the lotion is not good. For us all, the sex is good, the fact that we need sex is not good. As for him excluding lotion will cause eczema, excluding sexual activity may very well cause depression because it's going against our nature/our genes. So yeah I think that our sexual strategy is slowly switching from an apelike sexual strategy to a birdlike sexual strategy. And that in the far future we will only have coitus when we are planning to make a child since we won't need it anymore to keep ourselves happy after our genes have adapted fully to this new sexual strategy.