- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
I was reading the blog of one of the high ranked gc seducers Seppuku
and in this article here
https://thedoctorsdiary.com/women/what- ... antically/
he says "Women are driven by their instincts to create and nurture life, with the added responsibility to improve the species."'
Now I agree women have an instinct to create and nurture life,but the second part of the statement,
"with the added responsibility to improve the species" t here I have to disagree,
I disagree that any organism would ever develop an instinct that is for the good of the species,
I believe genes are selfish,genes do not care about the kingdom,genes do not care about the phylum,and genes certainly do not care about the species.
infact biologists like richard dawkins would even argue(very convicingly) that genes do not even care about the individual ,genes only care about making copies of themselves.
The individual animal is just a vehicle being used by te genes to create copies of itself.
however I concede that in the quest for making copies of themselves ,genes may actually do something good for the species,However i insist that this can never be the primary objective,if the species is improved than this is a by product of the genes improving their own prolificity.
allow me an example,
lets assume,women are attracted to handsome ,healthy,strong men,and are repusled by disabled sickly weak men,
by denying unfit males the chance to procreate
on the surface surely then it would seem that women are infact hardwired to take actions that would result in the improvement of the species.
however I would argue that the womens motivation is not to improve the species ,but to improve their offspring(Their genes).
I say the woman wants a healthy male,so that her offspring can be healthy too,I say the woman wants an attractive male,so that her offspring can be attractive too,because her genes would spread faster if they inhabit an attractive child,rather than a child who no one will want to mate with.
so while we agree on the action(women looking for a high value male),we disagree on the motivation.
how would one go about determining the genes motivation,is the gene selfish and concerned only about itself,or is the gene humanitarian and concerned about the whole species?
SEPEKUZ ASSUMPTION
Let us for the sake of argument assume the gene is humanitarian,let us assume a human is primarily concerned with the good of the species,in a scenario where the human is in competition with a superior human,we would expect this human to back down for the good of the species,right?
for example, we would expect that if a woman sees a high value woman,she should direct her man to her"for the good of the species",we would also expect no such instincts such as jeolousy.women would happily relinquish a man to a superior female"for the good of the species",woman would also give the most care to their own offspring ,but to te most deserving children,perhaps the cutest,perhaps the brightest,perhaps the most athletic children,even if these were to be the children of strangers,after all they are doing this "for the ood of the species"we would also expect the mutants, the disabled,the diseased and the ugly to not have a desire to proceate"for the good of the species",I wonder how many people have an instinct to be celibates"for the good of the species.
,what we see throughout human interacions( and really all other organisms),is that all organisms try their best and the quality and quantity of mates they can get is set not by them,but by the other organisms.
to procreate,to tend and care only for their own offspring,and to want the best mates they can get ,this is thebehaviour we would expect from an organism that was primarily intersted in spreading its genes,rather than an organism that was interested in the good of the species
and in this article here
https://thedoctorsdiary.com/women/what- ... antically/
he says "Women are driven by their instincts to create and nurture life, with the added responsibility to improve the species."'
Now I agree women have an instinct to create and nurture life,but the second part of the statement,
"with the added responsibility to improve the species" t here I have to disagree,
I disagree that any organism would ever develop an instinct that is for the good of the species,
I believe genes are selfish,genes do not care about the kingdom,genes do not care about the phylum,and genes certainly do not care about the species.
infact biologists like richard dawkins would even argue(very convicingly) that genes do not even care about the individual ,genes only care about making copies of themselves.
The individual animal is just a vehicle being used by te genes to create copies of itself.
however I concede that in the quest for making copies of themselves ,genes may actually do something good for the species,However i insist that this can never be the primary objective,if the species is improved than this is a by product of the genes improving their own prolificity.
allow me an example,
lets assume,women are attracted to handsome ,healthy,strong men,and are repusled by disabled sickly weak men,
by denying unfit males the chance to procreate
on the surface surely then it would seem that women are infact hardwired to take actions that would result in the improvement of the species.
however I would argue that the womens motivation is not to improve the species ,but to improve their offspring(Their genes).
I say the woman wants a healthy male,so that her offspring can be healthy too,I say the woman wants an attractive male,so that her offspring can be attractive too,because her genes would spread faster if they inhabit an attractive child,rather than a child who no one will want to mate with.
so while we agree on the action(women looking for a high value male),we disagree on the motivation.
how would one go about determining the genes motivation,is the gene selfish and concerned only about itself,or is the gene humanitarian and concerned about the whole species?
SEPEKUZ ASSUMPTION
Let us for the sake of argument assume the gene is humanitarian,let us assume a human is primarily concerned with the good of the species,in a scenario where the human is in competition with a superior human,we would expect this human to back down for the good of the species,right?
for example, we would expect that if a woman sees a high value woman,she should direct her man to her"for the good of the species",we would also expect no such instincts such as jeolousy.women would happily relinquish a man to a superior female"for the good of the species",woman would also give the most care to their own offspring ,but to te most deserving children,perhaps the cutest,perhaps the brightest,perhaps the most athletic children,even if these were to be the children of strangers,after all they are doing this "for the ood of the species"we would also expect the mutants, the disabled,the diseased and the ugly to not have a desire to proceate"for the good of the species",I wonder how many people have an instinct to be celibates"for the good of the species.
,what we see throughout human interacions( and really all other organisms),is that all organisms try their best and the quality and quantity of mates they can get is set not by them,but by the other organisms.
to procreate,to tend and care only for their own offspring,and to want the best mates they can get ,this is thebehaviour we would expect from an organism that was primarily intersted in spreading its genes,rather than an organism that was interested in the good of the species
