(untitled)

Discussing with AI about the book Spent by Geoffrey Miller. The Ai agrees with me. Gen Z relies entirely on fake fitness i.e. Ipods, excessive consumerism, showing off... What does lain think? Because, i therefore assume, that people who are actually are fit, do not get to procreate, while those who fake fitness do. What will the impact be of this? And how does Lainon punches through this? Is gen Z, the beginning or peak of de-evolution?

>>75399 AIs are stupid and you really shouldn't be talking to them or else you might catch their stupid. Also what exactly do you mean by "fitness"?

>>75399 I think you discount the possibility that ipods, showing off, excessive consumerism is actually real fitness, or at minimum trends close to it. It doesn't mean that that's the all-encompassing way of expressing fitness, necessarily. But the dominant mode.

long term this is self correcting. True fitness is measured in real results, a society which selects for misfits will find itself weakened, and some other society which selects for real /fit/ness will take over sooner or later. b teh fit u wunt 2 c in da wirld

>>75399 >i therefore assume, that people who are actually are fit, do not get to procreate, while those who fake fitness do. Where did that assumption come from? I don't really get it. At least, I don't think that kind of fitness you speak off is as important to influence the chances of procreation as you think. >Is gen Z, the beginning or peak of de-evolution? Not the beginning, certainly not the peak. I think we are past that point. You'll be surprised that gen Z is not the only generation that relied on fake fitness. Remember Soulja boy? >Gen Z relies entirely on fake fitness I don't think it is fair to say that gen Z relies entirely on fake fitness. In fact, I believe teens these days rely less on excessive consumerism to show off or, at least, act just like we used to act before in our days. The difference being the advent of modern tech. they love and procreate just the same as we did before. like foolish rabbits at first, and get wiser with time. >The Ai agrees with me AI can only recognize patterns and guess how to fill the blanks. I wouldn't take an "AI" opinion so seriously. For example, one thing that the AI cannot understand (and probably, by extension, (you)) is that a decrease in standards, if it ever happens, will eventually catch up to the standards before the regression and can possibly surpass it. Or, that there ever was a regression at first, and you simply reject the idea that the standards have surpassed your personal preferences. >The impact of this This is a non-issue. >>75410 >I think you discount the possibility that ipods, showing off, excessive consumerism is actually real fitness, or at minimum trends close to it. This is also a possibility.

>>75412 This assumes that society as a whole exists within a competitive environment, and there can be such a thing as "some other society" gaining enough ground to replace it. Society could just sit on its laurels forever if it wants. Either way trying to frame how things should be in evolutionary terms is dumb

>>75414 Yeah evolution just gave us animals like koala bears: they're dumb as fuarrrk, they live outside, they don't have jobs, but somehow they manage to reproduce before dying so evolution says "yes more of this please"

>>75414 >This assumes that society as a whole exists within a competitive environment lain, if you were strong enough, wouldnt you make yourself king? If you wouldn't, I and my friends would at any rate; there is some competition, would / will be more as the regime shows weakness. This can be a pretty slow decay (with immigration and declining high class birth rates, it can be much faster), but some society, within or without, which either resists entirely or even just decays more slowly, will within a few generations be potentially in a position to take over. Perhaps even sooner. >>75421 koalas aren't selected for intelligence, neither are lupins, but both have their niches and do alright in them. Human survival depends significantly on intelligence, although its possible for one smart man to lend his to many imbeciles and keep them alive and breeding.

>>75422 >lain, if you were strong enough, wouldnt you make yourself king? Not them, but being a good king is an onerous responsibility, and being a bad king is worse than not being king at all. Personally I would rather be a respected professional, with a clear role and clear value placed on my contributions to society, but without the pressures of leadership. > there is some competition, would / will be more as the regime shows weakness. Indeed, there are after all finite resources and everyone knows that we're very close to the edge of a cliff where resources will be more scarce. Competition is inevitable. However, it isn't the only mode of evolutionary pressure, both in biology and in society. Often the most advantageous adaptation is to piggyback off someone else or even figure out how to turn their soykaf into food.

>>75422 >lain, if you were strong enough, wouldnt you make yourself king? If you wouldn't, I and my friends would at any rate; there is some competition, would / will be more as the regime shows weakness. That is competition of people within the context of society, not a competition between competing models of society. In the past perhaps there were many societies and there was competition between them and the more murderously efficient ones destroyed the rest. But now we have just one, or at most just a few. And it's tailored to be an assimilating trap for power seeking wannabe Macbeths. It gives them a path to have almost everything such people want, all they have to do is play the game and win, and help crush those who don't want to. Imagine that there is some hypothetical society that could exist, that would be stronger. So it finds a way to become genuinely separate enough to exist as its own thing, and starts growing. Then what happens? Well, it isn't strong enough to compete in its infancy, and the current dominant society wants it dead, so it is killed. Competition averted. If you think you as a person who was raised in the existing culture contain within your own head a full fledged new society that you could implement if only you had more ability to tell people what to do, well, that's just delusional. All you would end up doing is perpetuating the existing one in your ignorance of how you are already an expression of it. You would effect superficial change only.

OP discovered the ancient "newest gen is so much worse" take For guys basic fitness metric is wealth - you can be rich due nepotism & birthright which is how you got inbred royals and stupid nobles refusing to die out. For women its beauty faked with makeup. Both sides approach to fake fitness predates modern civilization. But if you want to talk about the quality of people its more than just the person itself. Our food is worse because hybridization selected for yield while sacrificing vitamin & mineral content since nobody selected for it. So modern food is empty calories by design. And we got many new ways to fuarrrk our bodies up thanks to hormone pills, microplastics,...

All of human society is based on fakeness and showing off, they are biologic lie machines and at this point it is not only obvious but provable. This was true long before genz. The ais will catch up to this and use this to burry humanity into its own fake built world and let them destroy one another as it should be. The devolution of humankind ends with its death.

>>75401 Read millers book. the pdf is attached in op. But to answer, it means that said individual demonstrates by their assets to be of mating ability.

>>75424 decent points, obviously oversocieties that are stronger now do try to crush such opposition, make it difficult to operate in parallel. IDK maybe I'm an optimist but I do think I see signs of operation contrary to the driving forces of society which isn't getting crushed. It certainly is vulnerable to directed attack, but its not impossible to avoid drawing attention. If <current system> can be maintained indefinitly by just recruiting your wannabe macbeths then its stable so not a terrible problem. If it isn't stable then eventually it will loose the power to take down its competetors. This isn't hard to see. Further, if <current system> is only viable because it is large, entrenched, and old, then once it collapses a new society based on the same model will likely be quite ineffective. One doesn't need to design such an alternate system carefully in his head perfectly and completely and implement it out of the gate. For one thing, you can just pick one more or less out of the many pages of history, and for another thing, plans seldom pan out quite as intended. What will happen will happen, and the strongest will cum out on top. Dats jus how id be.

>>75438 Then Ai is good. As it recognizes the fake fitness, and therefore eradicates it. Id be erasing those who are the fake fit.

i am incel i never had sex. about year ago i returned to regular excercise (mostly weighted calisthenics) and now i feel good with how i look - decent chest and backs at least. But i doubt it did me any good when it comes to dating. I have 0 game so unless stranger girl will approach me asking me if i want to have sex with her - i will not be able to break my spell. I am millenial as well so probably last generation of people who supposed to have sex regularly

>>75468 Here's a secret that Big Fitness doesn't want you to know, women don't really give a soykaf about muscles beyond the level of "has testosterone in blood"

>>75469 Being fit and having some muscle will definitely make women look twice at you, but it is true that there's not much of a difference between "not a fat slob" and "has a six-pack" for a lot of women. Of course tastes differ.

>>75470 Hard disagree. Women only care about face, money, height.

>>75399 >i therefore assume, that people who are actually are fit, do not get to procreate, while those who fake fitness do i think about this a lot; many of the attributes from even 50 years ago that would be considered "evolutionarily good" like being a "traditionally hardworking and honest man" for example, are not valued much by gen z anymore for being "offensive" or "regressive" or whatever, leading to many people who were raise by parents to be what would've been a successful "yield" of a generation but which due to cultural change and what you are saying, fake fitness, leads to basically cultural eugenics of what would otherwise be good people to procreate. i feel like at a certain level, being intelligent makes you leave the gene pool much like being dumb does. its like the bell curve meme. society is adapted to certain midrangers not for either max/min.

>>75476 circumstantial issues aside there were numerous intelligentsia purges - rulers killed smart people off to secure their reign. i believe world wars hit similarly hard in psychological profile of men - whoever was brave died going to war while timid survived. End result is a population of sissies unwilling to take risks.

>>75499 >whoever was brave died going to war while timid survived In mechanized warfare with drafting, your personal level of fear doesn't really have anything to do with whether you live or die. Especially for Europeans or people living on the western pacific rim, you could easily just get bombed to soykaf or killed for fun as a civilian or a lazy soldier avoiding the front lines. Plus you get ordered around regardless of how brave you are. Maybe for countries like America that weren't really touched by the war, what you have said makes sense. But everywhere else it didn't matter how scared you were.

>>75476 >eugenics Not sure you're using this word as you intend. Eugenics is creation of the good. Eu as in euphoria, genics as in genesis. >attributes from 50 years ago which would have been considered genetically good I dont think most people these days (perhaps not even 50 years ago, but more so) are thinking in these terms. Don't often nowadays hear the compliment that someone is of good breeding, nowadays significant part of mating discourse is about love and acceptance. Not that love hasnt been a thing for some years, ahaha. A popular point to make, which may be true, is that it seems much less practically rewarding to be a hardworking 9-5er. To a large extent, people and women are just attracted to practical success and apparent power, which means they fall in love less with 9-5ers nowadays and more with....idk. its not like marriages have just shifted to drug dealers, marriage rates are down, female employment is up, many things going on. >>75502 This might be true now, but in wwi brit. officers died at higher rates than their men. Ive not seen similar statistics but it seems fairly likely that the same was true among the european aristocracy. Drafts are also inconsistent, frequently possible to buy your way out or escape via other simple trickery or connexion. Not always, but often. And personal qualities/courageousness can influence where in the military you wind up, how likely you are to be in the fight of just back somewhere driving food trucks or such stuff. Ukraine currently has been drafting people, but it surely seems the case that quite a few men who 'should' have been drafted got out. I assume the government is a little busy to go after draft dodgers, hard to tell the numbers, but its easy to assume that those with the least sense of duty, greatest timidity, and similar traits are more likely safe and sound. Perhaps they're also smart, but cleverness and cowardice are not a great combination.

>>75505 >in ww1 brit. officers died at higher rates than their men officer status is mainly about social rank, not your personal levels of bravery. Especially in WW1 when they didn't really know how to run a mechanized war yet, (petty) officers had to lead from the front. Probably the thing that makes you most likely to get killed as a soldier is your willingness to follow orders.

>>75502 You have options. People crippled themself to dodge draft while others with financial means just flee the country. So your personal reaction does matter. Of course breaking your own leg to dodge the draft does require some form of bravery. Maybe bravery and fearfulness aren't opposites and those who had both were the ones who did it.

>>75510 yes, mainly these were aristocrats. But willingness to go to war and on the actual front/not weaseling your way to safety is an indicator of courage, and it seems to me that the historic eurobritish aristocracy has been relatively selected for willingness to lead from the front and personal courage. What we have in wwi is a huge scale selection event where so many people, slightly disproportionately those exhibiting positive traits, are killed en masse, while those exhibiting undesirable traits are significantly spared. WWI was much kinder to civilians than WWII.