boredom + green stuff = hmmz
- Thread starter cb1202
- Start date
then who is gonna buy our metals and coal?
harriergirl
Landscape Designer
I don't think this convo needs to go any deeper tbh. The only humane way to cause change would be to educate as many people as possible and to do that, we need to all take responsibility for our social ills... those two things are an ongoing circle of social betterment imho.
Humanity is not going to stop breeding, although we may breed less. And as humans we are not going to stop caring for our infirm, as that in my opinion lessens part of what what makes us human. No individual or group has the right, responsiblity or the authority to legistlate or dictate otherwise. Nature made humans the way we are, ie: inventive, nurturing, empathetic, inquisitive; and nature will take care of us when we need pruning.
end of really.
Turnip2k
Harvester
The human race is no longer subject to evoloution as the rest of the planets ecosystem knows it, or natural selection. This is because for natural selection to occour, there must be some rejection of a given trait - which we dont really accept as a race.
Our evoloution has become more of a cultural process than a genetic one.
Medicine is just one facet of this - for most western societies, food / water, warmth and shelter are not a concern. Without the ability to obtain / find / fight for any of these in the natural world, we would most probably never get the chance to breed - and the trait which stopped us / made us less able than others to obtain these would not be passed down.
Nature may throw us the odd curveball with a virus outbreak / natural distaster, but on the whole, our ability to survive is now dependant on societies abilities, not just our own.
Our evoloution has become more of a cultural process than a genetic one.
Medicine is just one facet of this - for most western societies, food / water, warmth and shelter are not a concern. Without the ability to obtain / find / fight for any of these in the natural world, we would most probably never get the chance to breed - and the trait which stopped us / made us less able than others to obtain these would not be passed down.
Nature may throw us the odd curveball with a virus outbreak / natural distaster, but on the whole, our ability to survive is now dependant on societies abilities, not just our own.
BlackWolf
Landscape Designer
There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...
Yeah but to topic... we have now seen bible and all kind of other BS... who cares of your religions... I so hate when people draw religion to this kind of topics... like that Indian or Japanese or anything else would say its god who created us... rofl.
Modern medicine isnt that "awesome" if you start to think of it. We all eventually die anyways. If you then start to think of nature and its population growth models they all go around very few simple mechanics that are in interaction with each others.
Like rabbit, food, hunters, possible out side threaths. Along those lines rabbit population grows and gets smaller. So how does this work on humans... overgrowth-> check, food -> theres people in hunger cause world cant sustain them check, predators -> humans dont have natural predators check, outside stuff -> diseases, natural disasters, global warming check.
To me it seems we are just close to crash... Prepare your bunkers and collect your extra food supplies we are going down!
Yeah but to topic... we have now seen bible and all kind of other BS... who cares of your religions... I so hate when people draw religion to this kind of topics... like that Indian or Japanese or anything else would say its god who created us... rofl.
Modern medicine isnt that "awesome" if you start to think of it. We all eventually die anyways. If you then start to think of nature and its population growth models they all go around very few simple mechanics that are in interaction with each others.
Like rabbit, food, hunters, possible out side threaths. Along those lines rabbit population grows and gets smaller. So how does this work on humans... overgrowth-> check, food -> theres people in hunger cause world cant sustain them check, predators -> humans dont have natural predators check, outside stuff -> diseases, natural disasters, global warming check.
To me it seems we are just close to crash... Prepare your bunkers and collect your extra food supplies we are going down!
... ok what? If you're gonna say evolution is BS, at least back that (imo ridiculous) claim up. Penis length isn't a sign of fertility, like bigger hips on females is. Men instinctively tend to go for women with bigger hips (not fat, just a normal female curve), because it has been a sign of fertility ever since we walked this earth. Women don't instinctively go for men with big penises, but for men with certain traits (strong, tall, etc) that will assure their future kids a big chance of survival. As far as I know people with big penises die just as much as people with small ones.
I'd like to read the evolutionary theorem where big penis equals higher survival rate. Evolution has only been "proven wrong" by religious groups, who stick to books written 2000 years ago.
No-Dachi
Official Helper
Would it be spam if all I posted here was: Garret for president?
Please tell me this is sarcasm...
please tell me you arent that stupid to work it out yourself
I would invite you to keep quiet about matters not concerning you.
Forwyn
Pruner
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 55
You're looking at it wrong.
Instead of having some imaginary(and ridiculous) ceiling goal to look at in regards to a certain physical trait, instead compare us to other similar creatures.
Humans have, proportionally, the largest penises of all mammals. Gorillas are around 1-2", Orangutans 3-4", with humans averaging 5-6.5"(I include proportionally because inevitably someone would mention blue/sperm whales, who do have proportionally smaller penises). Do you think it happened by accident?
At this point in our civilization, penis size is likely to stop increasing, so your hypothesis is moot. Penis size is generally one of the last factors a woman will come to know and thus base a relationship on, after financial stability, other positive physical traits(that aren't concealed 24/7?), and personality compatibility.
timthetyrant
Head Gardener
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 388
humans also have a very low sperm count in comparison to other animals, how does that fit into the equation? i remember some quote by some horse breeder/racer "if man was a horse i'ld have it put down." made me laugh casue its something that could be used against men by their counterparts, just like how women cant drive 
Forwyn
Pruner
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 55
I would imagine sperm count isn't nearly as important as the delivery system in the case of humans.
If the system needed huge tweaking we wouldn't be pushing 7 billion people.
Now, whether or not this may become more of an issue, due to infertile/low sperm count males procreating with modern technology, remains to be seen.
Edit - Just remembered this: people in India caused some problems for condom companies a while back - it was discovered that condoms were failing more often than they should be - the reason is that Indian men are .5" to 1" smaller than the global average. But they've also found that Indian women typically have a smaller vaginal cavity to accommodate this.
If the system needed huge tweaking we wouldn't be pushing 7 billion people.
Now, whether or not this may become more of an issue, due to infertile/low sperm count males procreating with modern technology, remains to be seen.
Edit - Just remembered this: people in India caused some problems for condom companies a while back - it was discovered that condoms were failing more often than they should be - the reason is that Indian men are .5" to 1" smaller than the global average. But they've also found that Indian women typically have a smaller vaginal cavity to accommodate this.
Last edited:
harriergirl
Landscape Designer
please don't start talking about vaginal cavities. women are designed for that area to be quite ... flexible, meaning that if they've only ever had Indian Penis, then they havne't been required to stretch ..... that's all.
Penis size has little to nothing to do with why women select mates. this conversation annoys me =P
Penis size has little to nothing to do with why women select mates. this conversation annoys me =P
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
I can't imagine penis size has ever been an evolutionary factor. I'd imagine back in caveman times, it was the caveman that could hunt animals, or the caveman that could club the other cavemen on the head hardest, that got picked by the ladies by and large... I doubt they all whipped their penises out and the woman picked the largest one, and the rest walked off dejected. It would have been whichever one could club the others over the head the hardest, or bring back the largest speared wild boar, or defend against predators etc.
Dragging back the topic to the original topic of "modern medicine is actually hurting the human race" I'd like to put a new idea out there
I was pondering this issue for a little while unsure where to sway towards. I then considered that in the way of evolution our species have evolved in the sense no longer the fittest survives, only those who are privileged.
It is no longer 'Power = brute force = security' but now 'technology = money = power = security'
Privileged by the definition I am using is power, the access to technology. Not technology in the computer sense, but in the sense of power. Technology being access to things which others do not have, therefore having advantages over our "competitors". For example, a mate would choose the partner based upon the protection which could be provided however as our species has evolved a different kind of protection has arisen, financial security. Which would then lead to be ability to *make* yourself fit.
Lets take a crude example; a poor country will not be able to afford modern medicine, therefore their people will from illnesses which can be resolved in the western world. Based upon my example of the new 'survival of the fittest' medicine is not harming evolution.
Now I really should address the part of the post that says that it is affecting genetic disorders, as I’ve decided to branch out. Illness will occur no matter the gene pool, to wipe out illness entirely is impossible, these diseases evolve and will always attack our systems, so the fittest will adapt and create new drugs to combat the new disease.
So therefore modern medicine cannot possibly be harming our evolution as it is no longer the traditional survival of the fittest, it is now the survival of those who have the wealth to be able to afford and attain the ability to *make* themselves fit. In our post modern society we should abandon the idea of survival of the fittest in the common animal sense and separate ourselves.
This then leads nicely onto the politicisation of technology such as medicine, but that is staying too much and I am conscious that I’m rambling too much. I hope that makes sense. And thanks for reading
I was pondering this issue for a little while unsure where to sway towards. I then considered that in the way of evolution our species have evolved in the sense no longer the fittest survives, only those who are privileged.
It is no longer 'Power = brute force = security' but now 'technology = money = power = security'
Privileged by the definition I am using is power, the access to technology. Not technology in the computer sense, but in the sense of power. Technology being access to things which others do not have, therefore having advantages over our "competitors". For example, a mate would choose the partner based upon the protection which could be provided however as our species has evolved a different kind of protection has arisen, financial security. Which would then lead to be ability to *make* yourself fit.
Lets take a crude example; a poor country will not be able to afford modern medicine, therefore their people will from illnesses which can be resolved in the western world. Based upon my example of the new 'survival of the fittest' medicine is not harming evolution.
Now I really should address the part of the post that says that it is affecting genetic disorders, as I’ve decided to branch out. Illness will occur no matter the gene pool, to wipe out illness entirely is impossible, these diseases evolve and will always attack our systems, so the fittest will adapt and create new drugs to combat the new disease.
So therefore modern medicine cannot possibly be harming our evolution as it is no longer the traditional survival of the fittest, it is now the survival of those who have the wealth to be able to afford and attain the ability to *make* themselves fit. In our post modern society we should abandon the idea of survival of the fittest in the common animal sense and separate ourselves.
This then leads nicely onto the politicisation of technology such as medicine, but that is staying too much and I am conscious that I’m rambling too much. I hope that makes sense. And thanks for reading
Forwyn
Pruner
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 55
Oh really? The maximum depth of the vaginal cavity changes?
Thats what I said.
@Azzer, I would agree with you there. A likely explanation to the large proportional size of humans would relate to promiscuity. Cavewoman is with Caveman A, who clubs best out of the pack. But Cavewoman is unsatisfied sexually with Caveman A, so she has sex with Caveman B.
harriergirl
Landscape Designer
(imagine rudimentary illustration of birth here)<<-------This is larger than a penis of any nationality.
Yes it stretches =P
Last edited:
No-Dachi
Official Helper
Did your picture get owned tana?
But yes, sure the width of it will shrink/enlargen depending on what's getting put in there/how long since it's been anything but liquid moving in there. But the depth? Not knowing too much of anatomy, I'd think the depth would be pretty consistant.
But yes, sure the width of it will shrink/enlargen depending on what's getting put in there/how long since it's been anything but liquid moving in there. But the depth? Not knowing too much of anatomy, I'd think the depth would be pretty consistant.