|
Dumb people lose their virginity earlier in life (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by netroM
 |
That's actually pretty accurate from what I've experienced. lol |
|
|
| meriter |
| Randall Munroe's comics always seems to reflect what's going on at the moment. I wonder if he learned that at NASA. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I do not know why so many people think this even though the evolved behavior of thousands of animal species directly contradicts it.
There are plenty of animals that will forego opportunities to reproduce, or even actively avoid intercourse with a willing partner. Those behaviors aren't flukes or aberrations; they occur across far too many species to reach any conclusion but that they have been selected for.
And that's precisely what we should expect. For a population of large, complex organisms remotely comparable to human beings, there are probably thousands of variables when it comes to timing of reproduction, ratios of organisms at different stages of maturity, population density, competition, availability of food and other resources, et cetera, all of which affect and in some cases limit the degree to which an organism's engaging in intercourse is likely to produce a net evolutionary benefit. |
right so is our "evolved behaviour" more so like that of an elephant who decides to nurture while the resources invested in doing this is also correlated to its large size. OR instead we produce a large amount of offspring and hope they will survive ? I would say we fall more to the latter of those categories.
the graph speaks for its self. Population growth is rampant all over the world. The fact that we have sex for pleasure and use contraceptives is proof that instinctively we desire sex with one another and subconciously its for a need to spread our genes and reproduce. Albeit as human beings we can think and make more calculated decisions but the majority of us do not and those are the ones that are the majority and thus comprise the majority of the gene pool.
Ockham's razor's rule applies here. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
What if you lose your virginity to one sex early on but the other sex later on? Does it average out? |
yea your iq is now 0 you whore. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
right so is our "evolved behaviour" more so like that of an elephant who decides to nurture while the resources invested in doing this is also correlated to its large size. OR instead we produce a large amount of offspring and hope they will survive? I would say we fall more to the latter of those categories. |
Are you joking?
Humans have a huge investment in parenting individual kids. We're total K-strategists, putting a large amount of effort into few offspring that have high probability of survival (relative to other species). The number of kids that even a very fertile human will have is small compared to the number of offspring in mammals like mice or rabbits. Even the least technological human societies put in ten to fifteen years of parenting before offspring become self-sufficient and start reproducing on their own. This is right near the top in terms of parental investment. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Are you joking? |
No, he just lost his virginity at age 7. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Are you joking?
Humans have a huge investment in parenting individual kids. We're total K-strategists, putting a large amount of effort into few offspring that have high probability of survival (relative to other species). The number of kids that even a very fertile human will have is small compared to the number of offspring in mammals like mice or rabbits. Even the least technological human societies put in ten to fifteen years of parenting before offspring become self-sufficient and start reproducing on their own. This is right near the top in terms of parental investment. |
Right ok if your talking about per litter. but think about our life expectancy as well and how often couples have sex. now take away contraceptives. World population makes sense now doesnt it?
The K strategist theory makes sense when we're talking about time invested in taking care of the children. the avg number of kid s per family is 3 worldwide. Where it seems that the more educated are having less kids or none at all.
We are verry well capable as men to have over 50 kids if we wanted to.
Usually to impregnate it doesnt take very much. WE do not have a penile bone that breaks. We don't have to have sex over 1000 times as the lion does in order to make the female viable like the lion.
I am personally saying that the genetic advantage comes from those who reproduce alot. The world population boom speaks for itself. Clearly the people who are not reproduceing are NOT dominating the gene pool. Doesn't that make sense? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Right ok if your talking about per litter. but think about our life expectancy as well and how often couples have sex. now take away contraceptives. World population makes sense now doesnt it?
The K strategist theory makes sense when we're talking about time invested in taking care of the children. the avg number of kid s per family is 3 worldwide. Where it seems that the more educated are having less kids or none at all.
We are verry well capable as men to have over 50 kids if we wanted to.
Usually to impregnate it doesnt take very much. WE do not have a penile bone that breaks. We don't have to have sex over 1000 times as the lion does in order to make the female viable like the lion.
I am personally saying that the genetic advantage comes from those who reproduce alot. The world population boom speaks for itself. Clearly the people who are not reproduceing are NOT dominating the gene pool. Doesn't that make sense? |
You are assuming that the world population boom is due to lots of sex. In fact, it is due to advancements in medicine, economic structure and living conditions, if anything, the birth rate has slowed dramatically. It was only 200 years ago that many women died from childbirth, while many infants died from diseases like polio, rubella and pneumonia which are now well-treated. As a result, survival rates are now much higher, and thus the population grows more quickly. You must also take into account that we are growing exponentially, and provided no disruptions, population growth is going to increase the longer the human race persists for.
BoJingles is correct; humans are K-Strategists. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| The birth rate hasn't just slowed, it's stopped. The world population is only rising because less and less people are dying each year. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Not necessarily. Many scientists now think that world population growth will stop within the next century, leveling off between 9 and 12 billion.
|
Yeah, and then resources will be insufficient to sustain such a large population and we're all gonna die.
No, seriously. |
|
|
|
|
