I bought The Story Of The Human Body because I thought it would give me a biology lesson on the inner workings of the human body, but instead it was an evolutionary study of human anthropological history. While I did recently post a critique of how evolution has gone off the rails in regard to modern humanity, thanks to rapid advances in culture and technology that we haven’t kept up with, I do accept that evolutionary processes occurred during the history of our species.
The author, Daniel Lieberman, is a paleoanthropologist at Harvard. He has combined the latest human evolutionary research to explain the behavior of our body instead of our minds (that was covered more in the book Mean Genes). I didn’t want to read a book on evolutionary theory, but I didn’t mind getting an update on the current accepted science.
Lieberman begins his principal hypothesis by arguing that our ape ancestors became bipedal to better forage for food in a changing climate. At the same time he brings this hypothesis forth, he admits that the initial change to bipedalism would incur huge disadvantages. The new species would lose speed and agility, severely impacting its ability to hunt and therefore reduce it to more of a scavenger role. They’d gradually lose the skill to climb trees and be sitting ducks for predators. In spite of all this, there was a magical deus ex machina that allowed the bipedal species to survive though its initial jump to bipedalism, even though it’s not clear how that could have happened.
According to current theory, not only did the first bidpedal humans survive these disadvantages, but they managed to successfully evolve to the result you are now living. Bipedalism today is taken for granted, and we are obviously more adept at surviving than our ape cousins, but this change happened before the use of tools, language, and hunting, even with spears. Until we get further evidence that shows how these first bipedals survived, I have to assume it was from some sort of miracle.
…the benefits of foraging far and wide favored further adaptations for more habitual and efficient long-distance walking than we see in Ardi and other earlier hominins. The combination of these adaptations, which were largely driven by the exigencies of climate change, had momentous implications, setting the stage for the evolution of the genus Homo a few million years later and for many important features of the human body.
I bet in 1,000 years, absolutely nothing in the above passage will remain true, especially when explaining the why and how of evolutionary change. The problem with anthropological hypotheses like the one Lieberman provides is that they’re based on a minuscule set of data. They find one partial skeleton for every 100,000 or even 1 million years of human existence, and then re-jigger their entire theory around that skeleton. It’s intellectually dishonest, especially when you consider that a lot can happen in 100,000 years. If the history of humanity was a 1,000 page book, we only have one or two frayed pages of the entire story.
As Africa became cooler and drier many millions of years ago, fruit became more scattered and scarce, favoring those ancestors who were better able to forage by standing and walking upright.
[…]
Whenever the australopiths ventured down from trees, they were easy pickings for such carnivores as lions, saber-toothed cats, cheetahs, and hyenas that hunt in open habitats. Perhaps they were able to sweat and thus could wait until midday to move about when these predators would have been unable to cool down as effectively.
Perhaps! Yes, perhaps our guess is correct and we can explain a gigantic hole in figuring out how bipedals, who were slower and less capable of climbing trees, managed to survive at all.
And yet the apes that stayed on all fours continued to do just fine, at least up to recent times when humans finally started figuring out how to dominate its environment. How can natural selection promote the divergence of a species to bipedalism when, for at least a million years, it put them at a grave disadvantage? My argument is not that we couldn’t have evolved from apes, but that the initial jump to bipedalism must have been guaranteed death during the environment of the earth at that time. It would be like if a modern group of humans evolved to walk on their hands instead of feet in order to eat weeds and plants that are on the ground, but still had to compete with existing humans to survive.
The story of the Neanderthals
We’re starting to piece together the story of the Neanderthals, who were already in Europe when modern humans made it out of Africa. There was inter-breeding between them and humans (many non-Africans have Neanderthal genes) until they died out from supposed lack of food or other environmental reasons. My own guess is that they were slaughtered by modern humans. The reason we find their remains in caves is because that was the only place they could hold defensive positions.
It’s also becoming likely that Neanderthals were smarter than humans at that time. I’m guessing they saw new humans as inferiors who could be easily controlled, but when they got out-bred, it was all over for them (the current European migrant crisis is probably a light simulation of exactly how that happened).
…the last time the modern human and Neanderthal lineages belonged to the same ancestral population was about 500,000 to 400,000 years ago. Not surprisingly, human and Neanderthal DNA are extremely similar: only one out of every six hundred of your base pairs differs from a Neanderthal’s.
[…]
…all non-Africans have a very small percentage, between 2 and 5 percent, of genes that came from Neanderthals.
[…]
My guess is that Neanderthals were extremely smart, but that modern humans are more creative and communicative.
Lieberman has been at Harvard for too long to think it takes “creativity” to destroy an enemy. Modern humans were more numerous (higher fertility) and better at fighting (physically stronger or faster). To Neanderthals, humans must have been a dreaded zombie army that just kept coming from Africa. I can only imagine what the last Neanderthal thought of when he died in his cave fortress.
The transition to agriculture
We have enough data to show that agriculture has actually hurt humans in many ways. Life got more brutish and short after we began working the land and creating permanent settlements.
…a hunter-gatherer’s chances of dying from starvation must be orders of magnitude lower than any farmer’s.
[…]
Farmers consume foods that are starchier and contain less fiber, less protein, and fewer vitamins and minerals. Farmers are also more susceptible to eating contaminated food, and they risk famine more regularly and intensely than hunter-gatherers . In terms of diet, humans have paid a high price for the pleasure of enjoying a yearly harvest feast.
[…]
For thousands of years after the origin of agriculture, life stank, diarrhea was common, and cholera epidemics were regular occurrences. In spite of being unsanitary death traps, cities became magnets as the agricultural economy progressed. People flocked to cities because urban areas generally had more wealth, more jobs, and more economic opportunities than impoverished rural areas.
[…]
…there is little evidence for regular famines during the Stone Age. Hunter-gatherers rarely have massive food surpluses , but they seldom run out of food either, and their body weights fluctuate only modestly between seasons. As chapter 8 reviewed, famines became much more common and severe after farming began.
Lieberman explained how our energy needs have declined greatly since the Industrial Revolution. He used good data from early farm and industrial age workers like coal miners to make comparisons, unlike his earlier guesswork.
Modern living
Living in cities is decidedly modern, and evolution has not yet created the genetic adaptations that match a sedentary city lifestyle.
In 1800, only 25 million people lived in cities, about 3 percent of the world’s population. In 2010, about 3.3 billion people, half the world’s population, are city dwellers.
[…]
Has the industrial era caused a trade-off between lower mortality and an extension of morbidity? To some extent, the answer is unquestionably yes. Because of more food, better sanitation, and better work conditions, fewer people, especially children, contract infectious diseases and suffer from insufficient food, and so they live longer. It is also inevitable that, with age, the chance of cancer-causing mutations increases, arteries harden, bones lose mass, and other functions deteriorate. Many health problems correlate strongly with age, which makes them more prevalent as more populations grow and a larger percentage of them are middle-aged and elderly.
He provides an interesting observation of why more women are affected by cancer in the modern age:
All told, [a woman] can expect to experience approximately 350 to 400 menstrual cycles during her life. In contrast, a typical hunter-gatherer woman starts menstruating when she is sixteen, and she spends the majority of her adult life either pregnant or nursing, often struggling to get enough energy to do so. She thus experiences a total of only about 150 menstrual cycles. Since each cycle floods a woman’s body with powerful hormones, it is not surprising that reproductive cancer rates have multiplied in recent generations as birth control and affluence has spread.
Most problems that you face, including flat-footedness, near-sightedness, back pain, allergies, and digestive ailments are mismatch diseases resulting from the fact that we have put ancestral human bodies in modern environments quicker than evolution has allowed it to adapt. The same thing is happening with technology, where advances in tech are becoming so rapid that we will face increasing psychological suffering and malaise from being forced to stay plugged into the system.
Conclusion
The early parts of the book contained too much speculation. Lieberman was essentially pulling guesses out of thin air. Can you imagine aliens coming to planet Earth in a million years and finding one partial skeleton for the past 10,000 years of humanity, since the dawn of agriculture, and using that alone to create a complete picture of how modern humans lived? It’s absurd. I understand science wants to provide answers, but they’re placing too much confidence on theories from a random and sparse data set.
I can’t decide if it takes more faith to believe in evolutionary theories of early man or believing in the story out of Genesis with Adam and Eve. Nonetheless, if we are to try and base the ideas of humanity on science, the partial-skeleton-every-one-million-years approach must be used, and connecting dots from one skeleton to the next can at least provide the direction of evolution, but I’m hesitant to let scientific guesswork furnish me with answers on my existence.
If you set aside the speculation of the early pages, the book does a good job explaining how our bodies are evolved for hunter-gathering, and how modern living takes us away from that, creating disease and morbidity as we try to jam our bodies in environments that they simply don’t belong in. Overall the book does have reasonable information that could probably assist you with modern living, so it’s worth your time to check out.
Read More: “The Story Of The Human Body” on Amazon
But that’s the beauty of science! Even if it’s mere speculation, that’s how one advances science, by trying to prove that speculation.
Scientists are advocates for their worldview, they are not impartial judges.
People work harder to prove themselves correct.
That is, unless their theories get stumped or proven.
Science is considered as fact for the time being because it has been disproven. Once that happens, your whole perception of the world is turned upside down. You’ll be messed up and won’t know what is what. It’s like taking the red pill after being fed blue pill all your life.
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say, but it reminds me of something that a regular commenter on my blog uses to say. That the science paradigm is limited in its use and that it makes us overlook many more subtle truths about life. It makes us ignore our intuition and feelings and go on about that which is ‘measurable’.
In fact, this may have supported the equality doctrine. How? Easy. Intuitively, you just have names for certain personality traits or emotions. Stuff like ‘confidence’, ‘anxiousness’ et cetera. With empathy, you just look at a person and you know.
With science, it becomes all about ‘but he was not nervous! He did not shake, for instance’
It becoems about looking for objective, measurable signs, while all you need to identify and understand another human is already in you as an instinct.
So you end up reading articles about IOIs and all that kind of bullshit that is totally unnecessary if you were just able to free your mind enough to trust its own judgment and empathy.
Anyway, my point is: When you quantify emotions and states, you can argue that men and women are equal by bringing up examples where men behave in ways that seem ‘female’ and women behave in ways that seem ‘masculine’.
Of course, that seems ridiculous when you just look at men and women intuitively. It is obviously just a deception, a mind trick that uses your wish to be ‘rational’.
Ah, right, so women can behave dominantly. Alright, then my intuition must be wrong. I guess I am an idiot. Women and men are equal after all.
I’m not sure if you’re on acid. LOL! What was all that?
Basically, science as we know it now is based on what we observe with the tools and technology we have available right now. Once technology improves and we observe something we couldn’t before, our paradigm shifts to this new given observation. Example:
We defined a straight line as the path of light. Einstein proved to us that the path of light bends around a gravitational field, so now we have no idea if what we see straight ahead of us at 12:00 is really straight at all. It could be slightly bent by a couple of degrees.
Ancient man used to think the Earth was flat and you fall off the edge when you reach the horizon. Once ship building advanced and they were able to sail around the world and come back, that changed their whole perception of the world they lived in. It fucks you up from what you were taught as fact.
Ah, that was your point. That you have to occasionally adapt your worldview. I agree.
I am not on acid, but I am getting closer to perceive the world very clearly without psychedelics. It is quite amazing.
My point is: There are intuitive concepts that are real, but science can rationalize them away, e.g. femininity and masculinity.
You look at a woman who is feminine and you just say ‘feminine’. You do not know exactly what makes you say it, but you have seen it before and now that you see it again, you just know that that is the name you call it.
Now science can come and say ‘Yeah, what is femininity really? Can you even quantify it? Can you measure it?’ And you stand there, saying: I mean, no, but look at that woman. She is feminine. It is clear.
And the scientist will say: Nonsense. You have brought forth no argument. You have not quantified your observations. What body language precisely indicates what you said? Et cetera.
It is as if intuitively, we just perceive certain ‘spirits’ in which people are at any given moment in time, but they consist of an immense amount of visual cues combined with rhytm. And this presumes that it is merely visual and not perceived through some sixth sense. Which would explain why motion capturing often does not render believable results in cinema.
Another example is ‘confidence’. You can fake all the superficial, measurable notions of ‘confidence’ without really being that. But an observer with a clear mind will look at you and simply see that you are not that – confident. It will not even be a matter of dispute.
So what I am saying is: Some concepts are not yet measured or quantified, but nonetheless very valid and real. The only proof you need for that is that before the advent of science, various cultures already had names for roughly the same set of emotions – despite not being able to ‘measure’ them.
One more example: A mother who does not love her child can try to convince her child and herself that she is indeed a loving mother by imitating everything a loving mother does: Giving gifts, caring, being compassionate.
But when you look at it intuitively, you will just see that something is off. But a mind that operates strictly on a scientifit paradigm will be easy to manipulate. That mind will say: Well, what objective proof do I have that she does not love me? After all, all evidence suggests that she does. She cares for me, gives me stuff etc.
You could also use wife instead of mother, husband instead of child and it applies just as well. We see alot of that.
“I am not on acid, but I am getting closer to perceive the world very clearly without psychedelics. It is quite amazing.”
What *have* you been doing to achieve this? The recent difference is quite dramatic. I have been falling in the other direction recently, and would very much appreciate a few tips.
Yeah. But think of it. A husband who grew up with a loving mother will never accept a wife who does not love him. It will simply feel wrong to him. It is the man who knows nothing better than to be disrespected and receive faux love who comes together with that kind of woman.
Difference in my writing, you mean?
I have started a year ago with Ayahuasca. You can read on my blog about it. Over the year, I went through phases where I felt like going mad. A few times, I indeed used LSD for therapeutic reasons. I wanted those bad trips. It helped me feel myself and think more clearly. As they say, it destroys the ego, meaning that all those voices in your head get quieter and you can focus more on your real self.
So that gave me an idea where I want to go. On one acid trip, I kinda solved a childhood trauma, my narcissistic injury, the rejection by my mother. Ever since then, I never again felt like falling into that dark hole of shame when I got rejected or something.
Anyway, I had read about Kundalini at some point in time and I had met a very confident guy in Peru who was into this type of stuff. So I asked him to help me awaken Kundalini and he was only glad to help. This was interesting, because I had been an asshole towards him on a few occasions and he still showed compassion and love. First I was angry and thought ‘Who does he think he is? Fucking Jesus?’ But with time, I realized he was not just faking it, but actually accepted me as I was. He said he had understanding for it, because he knew I was in pain.
So anyway, he started to give me homework. Meditations. Started out with 10 minutes daily. And those meditations lead me to solve a big bunch of issues and ideas in my head. It is quite fantastic. I have been doing that for 3 weeks now and I am looking forward what will come in the future. The cool thing is that you practically go around in your mind accepting and loving everything there is, even your worst sides. So it is quite the opposite of ‘forcing yourself’ to do something or forcing yourself to have discipline. With time, all those doubts and voices in the head actually fade away and since you have come to understand them and integrate them, they never come back and your head becomes light and clear.
Also, I read this page: gettinbetter.com/needlove.html
And ‘No More Mr Nice Guy’ by Robert Glover.
That is really helpful, thanks. I’m looking forward to reading your blog fully, youve such an honest style.
The changes I noticed, on here, your writing is always strong but I guess it was more the angle of approach which changed. Ive been away for a few months and I remember you were more perhaps argumentative or single minded ( not necessarily incorrect) where now you cover multiple perspectives and I can almost see the whole mind being used at once as if youve had influence of a non-western mentality. Its is much easier to agree with you now and to see your point when I dont agree.
Your mention of a reduced ego is fascinating, that is exactly what I think has been troubling me recently, I noticed a growing urge in myself to disagree and fight more often which I realised was down to an ego problem. I have become a hypocrite. Worse still I was becoming annoyed at those that ‘dont care’ at work, but its now clear they have the not forcing themselves all worked out. 😉
Your story will keep me busy learning for a while. Thankyou so much for your time.
That is a great compliment, thank you. I am not sure I deserve it. I am not exactly alpha by any objective definition I have read. But I am coming to own whatever I am. An enlightened loser, you could say.
As for the ego, the process of ‘losing’ it actually goes through fully embracing it. So instead of beating yourself up for being argumentative, learn to love and understand that side of yourself and wherever it leads and has led you. Embrace that urge and you will get to its core. And once it is fully acknowledged, you will notice that it simply fades and you do not have to fight it anymore. If you have to fight it, it is not yet gone. You see, nothing in you is there without a reason, not even the ego. It serves a purpose. Just discover it and maybe you will find you no longer need it.
You are spot on. Modern people is really overdependent on objective measurements, even for things that have been known for millennia.
Not necessarily. A man who has a loving mother would have a higher impression of women in general unless the mother also warns his son(s) the evils of women. It is doubtful that most women even understand their own sex. They would be a member of the herd and teach their boys to be nice to women, shower them with gifts, put them on a pedestal.
It’s the FATHER that needs to teach the sons the truth and nature of women. His loving mother would most likely be the only woman that would truly love him for who he is.
Ah. Yes, of course, the father would need to introduce him to manhood. But still, a loving mother would make sure he would know what it feels like to be loved. Hence, when he meets some narcissistic cunt who does not care for him, he will simply not be satisfied and reject her.
Here is where the problem starts. He will never find that woman/wife/girlfriend that will love him for him. Never. A woman will exploit his yearning for that love and use it for her benefit to leech off of him, a charade. She will use that to deceive him until she utilizes all his resources or until a better sucker comes along.
Most mothers don’t teach their sons this simple fact not because she wants her sons to suffer, but because she herself is unaware of her own female nature. She perpetuates the same problem. Some mothers do understand female nature and warns her sons, but not many.
See, you likely grew up with a mother who did not love you properly, else you would not have that yearning. I know what you mean, but that is not really love, more like praise and narcissistic supply.Which you can never get enough of. Love aimply feels … relaxed, boring, good.
really???? Check out the lewontin falacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
An additional reply
The existence of that fallacy, as Lewontin wanted to prove race is meaningless, proves my point.
Agriculture is interesting because, as little as I know, it is when private property became more starkly defined and the nuclear family (or what would be the nuclear family eventually) started to overtake the communal upbringing style.
Basically, social norms changed towards more individualistic (or factional) and less communal norms and there was a lot of blood in the transition.
Interesting insight. As I stated before, social concepts like socialism only work in small groups where people share the same ideas, as well as mostly the same genetics. Agriculture really broke this up when, unless they worked a a kibbutz style farm, families tended to isolate themselves.
“Interesting insight. As I stated before, social concepts like socialism
only work in small groups where people share the same ideas, as well as mostly the same genetics. Agriculture really broke this up when, unless they worked a a kibbutz style farm, families tended to isolate
themselves.”
Socialism has never worked outside of Orthodox Christian monasteries. And there was never an era before agriculture, Adam and his children were farming the land and had domesticated animals from day one. Turns out it takes about seven generations (of the animal) to domesticate a species, as proven by the Soviet scientists who domesticated foxes, not tens of thousands of years. It also only requires about three generations for cute domesticated pink pigs that get loose to turn into wild tusked boars. Socialism and the welfare state has enabled lots of human pigs to turn into boars who couldn’t farm to save their lives.
Interesting information, that about the pigs and foxes. Truly intriguing.
Socialism works for tribes. I recommend you to watch Bruce Perry’s documentary ‘Tribe’. Gives you an idea how these people live in various places of the world.
Sharing works for them because they know each other. In a big society, socialism fails because there are not personal bonds, thus no sense of responsibility and intuitive fairness. Which is compensated for by standardized morals.
Socialism it seems does not scale.
Yeah. But it still has something we crave, which is that kind of intimacy between all members. Which gets lost in a massive scale socialism and is replaced by a faux kind of empathy and understanding where everybody pretends to be some kind of standard-person.
I like to contemplate a form of ‘tribal capitalism’, where tribes interact business-like in the large scale, but manage with compassion and understanding within their borders.
Actually, I believe that for one, Adam and Eve didn’t do farming from day one. They lived off the Garden of Eden and its trees (Genesis 2:15-17). Two, the animals didn’t need domestication because God didn’t make them predate each other because they supposedly ate only plant matter (Genesis 1:30). In fact, Adam and Eve only ended doing agricultural work after they got kicked out of Eden (Genesis 3:21-24).
As far as the Soviet Fox experiment, that was done under heavily controlled circumstances, which our ancestors probably didn’t have the luxury, probably relying more on trial and error over generations.
And while you are right on Orthodox monasteries practicing a variety of socialism, they weren’t the only ones. Of course there are Catholic monks such as the Franciscans, the aforementioned kibbutzim, the Mennonites, the Shakers (oddly enough, one of the few examples of effective female run institutions), the Amish, to name a few.
It’s a fine line between so-called intimacy of all members (has that ever existed in a socialist society, doubt it) and forced authoritarian conformity (like North Korea) to one’s fellow comrades.
It doesn’t scale when it becomes too successful. Therein a paradox of socialism. It becomes too big for its britches.
Of course it has not existed. It is the promise that is never delivered upon. But it is something that exists in real tribes, which Rousseau observed. That smartass figured: We can just adapt it to the whole society.
He and others ignored that a human only has the capacity to bond with a certain amount of other individuals.
An example that is easily observed are biker gangs. Heavily tribalistic, hierarchical, and, ironically, very comformist inside their own tribe. Explains why evangelical Christians love preaching to these kinds of people.
Then again, these gangs are kind of places for lost souls to go to, like the military. They seem more like escapist aggressive self-help groups than real tribes, which would incorporate family and kids and everything. This lack of family may explain why most of them seem to be so ridiculously sentimental about some issues, like being ‘for children’. Some even hate humans, but love dogs and will kill a man who kicks a dog or whatever. Troubled souls.
A better example may be mafia. Like the Godfather. But even that is not really it, because it works with threats and coercion.
Maybe the Japanese (or Chinese?) clans of Samurai are a good example. They seem to be like villages where everything you need is inside. Family, wifes, kids, caring, food, fighting, etc.
All those modern gangs and stuff seem like a half-ass compensation for that real deep satisfaction you get from being in a tribe.
Maybe I am romanticizing. I do not know.
Also, consider large families, like the one I came from. Everything has to be shared, nothing can be wasted, and invariably, the younger kids get the hand me downs.
Easy. You’re not, they are. And to be fair, at least the military still, up to a point, encourages its members to keep in touch with their families, especially on deployments. That’s advice I would give to anyone wishing to join. At the same time, in modern times, with competition for jobs, one has to be able to detach whenever necessary in order to guarantee survival, which is hard not just for gangs, but for ultra tribalized peoples, such as those in the Middle East. Don’t believe me, look at the Kardashians. While some of their shenanigans are made up, they still got that Armenian tribalism in them, which explains why they have to be together constantly. Ditto my ex fiancee, who was born in the U.S. from Mexican parents, but her maternal side was half Armenian who emigrated from Jerusalem after the Genocide. It’s ridiculous how attached they are to the point where they can’t function properly, thus turning them into a liability. Explains partly why I’ve been single for 3 years now.
You mean to the tribe, I presume.
Yeah, I mean it makes sense. We all crave these bonds and compensate for their lack with a lot of sex, Hollywood, food, drugs. That is what civilization does in large parts. It may be fun for some time, sure, but one day, I want more.
As for the military, I posted an article on my blog by a guy who has been in the Navy for a few years. This account has cemented in me the belief that these soldiers are just weak-minded idiots who seek for guidance. As I did not too long ago.
Not all of them. I did join the USAF, and while I didn’t fulfill all my goals, I found it satisfactory and if I could go back in time and do it all over again I would. And yet I made sure not to fall into the indoctrination too deep. Not an easy process, but even though I miss it, I can move on with my life. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Quite a number of those who enlist can’t move on and become disgruntled. Even though the government has some responsibility for not detoxing these guys in the way out, it’s still pretty sad that these guys close themselves off.
No benefit of doubt needed, as it really is not a first-hand experience. If you are interested, check out the article someday, I find it quite well written and amusing.
They become a liability to everyone, not just the tribe. Oddly enough, this type of ultra tribalism not only leads to cultish behavior on the right with all these religious extremists, but it also breeds militant feminists on the left.
In that case, please share the link with us. I am intrigued already.
There you go: http://manwithoutfather.com/2015/11/22/u-s-navy-the-false-dream-of-serving-the-country/
I only read part, but from what I read, here’s a bit of personal wisdom: if you’re going to join, treat the military in the same way you court a woman. Definitely get to know her first before you commit, don’t worship her, no matter the mission, have time for yourself, expect disappointment if the relationship sours, infidelity is a possibility. If you’re planning to go at it in the long haul, getting a “divorce” will be tough. Also, be careful with a “dishonorable” discharge, lol!
Also, if you don’t like ships, tight spaces, or nosy people, don’t join the Navy. Coming to think about it, reading this reminded me why I told that Navy recruiter to fuck off and joined the Air Force instead.
In conclusion, have a red pill mentality if anyone is thinking of joining.
That brings to mind the 15th-17th century building boom where hundreds of Spanish RC missions across the New World were built to convert the natives. The missions were followed soon thereafter by Spanish surveyors and cartographers.
I have no plans of joining the military. The whole drilling stuff is for sheep who take pride in obedience. I do not. But I liked the story, hence I shared it. Thanks for the tips, though.
A biker gang would be more akin to the spirit of pirates on a pirate ship. The ship is their surrogate mother figure. They serve their ship. Bikers love their machines like pirates were wedded to their boat whether it was stolen or not. (all pirate ships were stolen of course). The original post Korean war bikers were like lost boys who weren’t very inclined to pairbond and form nuclear families. They had relations with women though. Gang bang biker parties were like what you would have on a pirate ship with the pirates gang banging a wench that they took aboard. It’s odd how bikers and pirates behaved as if they were female starved, gang banging the way prison inmates would do if you let a female into a male cell block. ‘Prison love’ is the closest thing to pirate or old outlaw biker romance. They’re similar. I’m not referring to modern Harley owners and bike clubs, but the original outlaw gangs.
The only thing lower than the sex life of a pirate would be the sex life of a prison inmate. Actual real life ‘Prison love’ goes to the very bottom of debauchery. I’ve seen where two transvestite prostitutes were booked into jail once, and as the two entered the large holding cell full of males, they announced ”the girls are here”. These were two black tranny hookers. Within munites, at least 30 black guys had lined up with their pants down to have their turn on the tranny’s asses. It was a county facility where whites and blacks were held together, not a state pen. It’s amazing how the horny black guys didn’t fight over the saturday night ass party, but stood and lined up neatly like disciplined and behaved kids in a lunchline awaiting their turn. Is that beta or what? Hmm. Funny how no white guys joined ‘the line’. Hmm. I wasn’t there the following weekend, but I heard mentioned that those trannys were a regular weekend feature there.
Can you imagine throwing a wretch like ‘Hillary’ in there. Those motherfuckers would pile on her 12 at a time and sauce her like a toaster streudel. That’s pretty desparate. I’d hate to imagine the fate of a farm animal like a sheep or goat if it were let into a cell block of ‘thirsty’ prisoners like those animals. They’d probably fuck animals if that’s all there were. I hear Babylon went lower than that. Like I said, the enslaved and prisoners go all the way to the lowest pits imaginable. Cucked, pussywhipped and imprisoned men are one and the same. Slaves.
Can I take from that, that it is possible to have socialist ideals without being labelled as a sjw?
Would changing the culture to be more tribal not only make me content but also shut the sjws up?
Whatever the answer, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
I also think the standardised morals suit only those in power. The complaints of nanny states and health and safety taking away our freedoms are sighs that we are starved of our means to express our tribal nature as the govt try to make one rule for everyone.
This is how we are evolving right now, the standards are causing a huge selection pressure on the population to fit in to a system that suits only the tribe in power.
Well, I am not really holding ideals at this moment. I have a few ideas I like, but naturally, they are limited by my insight into the intricacies of their implications.
Yeah, standardised morals are shit. But they are the intuitively logical attempt to adapt tribal life to a larger scale. Since individual cases in court can no longer be left to the wisdom of the judge and understanding of relationships between people and situations, you have to generalize rules so that people have a sense of stability.
None sense, the nuclear family was much bigger then, than it is now
I never said it wasn’t
Could merging with machines be humanity’s next evolutionary step? A good number of elites want to upload their brains to the internet and live forever in cyberspace. The Transhumanism movement is a philosophy I have a difficult time supporting. Relying on technology to solve our problems often times leads to unintended consequences (Smartphone). One thing for sure is that our biology is not adapted for our modern lifestyles and it shows with obesity and other modern ailments plaguing Western society. We live in crazy times.
Suddenly, Skynet doesn’t seem as far fetched. Consider automobile tech like backup cameras, parallel parking assistance, and onboard WiFi . Most of this has been proven to be hackable, thus rendering human operators vulnerable. Plus, even if not the case, most of us learned how to drive with little reliance on gadgets other than the vehicle itself being reliable. I cannot imagine how modern generations will fare with automobile tech being too automaticized. And next in line are self driving vehicles. Next thing you know, people will look like the fatasses on Wall E.
I agree to an extent. If our virtual reality technology continues to advance it will turn our physical bodies into blobs like the movie Wall E. But the goal of transhumanism is to eventually leave our physical bodies and upload our brains to some invincible robot machine where we won’t be restricted by any biology needs such as food, drink and need to reproduce.
“our brains to some invincible robot machine where we won’t be restricted by any biology needs such as food, drink and need to reproduce” Who says our minds aren’t already there? We only see the world as it is- because that’s the way our brains perceive it. The schizophrenic perceives a world full of voices and hallucinations. A person on LSD might see an angel and a demon fight over his body on 5th avenue. Who’s right? Us normal people say why it’s us of course, but, when you ask them how are you so certain? They mostly say in a tautological manner “just because that’s the way it is”.
It’s strange to think that we all talk about physical reality, but, absolutely none of us know what it actually looks like. It’s our minds that create the representation of it that we all love and know.
Same arguments used against the industrial revolution
“Relying on technology to solve our problems often times leads to unintended consequences”
That’s actually one of the thesis of Ulrich Beck’s idea of the Risk Society. (Post-) Modern society differs from previous ages in that it doesn’t merely act upon nature it acts upon itself, reflexively. As it does so it produces unintended consequences. With transhumanism / Humanity 2.0 the likelihood for unintended (and potentially catastrophic) consquences must increase exponentially (just as Kurzweil for instance consider that progress increases exponentially as we approach the ‘singularity). It seems likely that part of this next stage of self-directed evolution (which is always just slightly behind the “idea of progress” and often implicitly or explicitly linked to ideas of human self-deification) will involve upgrading our physical bodies and cognitive abilities, possibly through our becoming (more than we already are) cyborgs of some sort (google glass, IRD chips up our bums, etc).
Obviously, it will go horribly wrong, but it will certainly be interesting.
One last note, I think the manosphere as a whole has been very slow to grapple with this reality, as a probable consequence of its sometimes ‘reactionary bent’ – we hear too often about the fact that our physiques / brains etc are adapted to a hunter-gatherer environment and it will take dozens of millenia to change. The elites / ascended masters and other Dr Frankensteins of our age intend to change that reality.
That is probably the first fact we should be adapting too
One of the prime driving instincts of man has been to escape our limited biology. Technology and everything it incorporates represents this intention more than perhaps anything else. The problem however is that its very functionalism in the way it orders reality, which isn’t necessarily the way human beings do things, is affecting, very profoundly the way human beings behave, especially in social contexts. This question is rarely posed by academics and other interested parties as it’s assumed that the effects are beneficial and for our collective betterment.
The fear that I have is that human nature and behavior will actually devolve rather than evolve through an over reliance on the transposed functionalism that much social technology currently employs. You can observe this quite clearly in the way e-mails or text messages actually induce a form of action-reaction response that reduces human relationships to processes that need to be administered.
On the issue of merging biology with technology, apart from developments where invasive devices are used in the body in the fields of medicine and surgery, I don’t actually see any greater merging, especially at the mental/cognitive level. To be blunt- the mathematics is simply not there- our technologies use computational rules which are highly defined and limited. These rules cannot accommodate even the basic movements of nematodes let alone apes and humans. The current scientific paradigm will have to change quite radically and accept unorthodox concepts and ideas, like Platonism in mathematics and the role intentional awareness in biological systems for any real progress to occur.
What if that is just a bullshit narrative? What if this is only a way to sell us useless technology by making us feel inadequate and reduced to our biology and flesh?
Think of meditation and spirituality. Think of healing techniques, empathy, intuition, chakras, chi and all that stuff. Think of placebo effect and self-healing. Think of the power of love.
We are much more than just our biology. We can find all the joy and satisfaction and excitement we need completely within ourselves. I would like to see this emphasized and honored more often.
“We can find all the joy and satisfaction and excitement we need completely within ourselves” Of course we can, but, alas despite the cornucopia of inner delights and joys we can experience through mediation, spirituality and music, we are still “such things as stars are made of”. We are beings of flesh and blood, the proof of this is when we are physically ill our spiritual and mental well being deserts us like the sunlight at dusk.
“What if that is just a bullshit narrative? What if this is only a way to sell us useless technology by making us feel inadequate and reduced to our biology and flesh?” Well, Tom it seems the people over the last few days have been voting with their feet when it comes to buying the latest smartphone and ipad. Besides, people make themselves feel “inadequate” and perhaps this inadequacy is reflected in our limited biological self, that is born, blooms, matures and dies. Technology has always given people perhaps the illusion of having some power over the brutal impersonal natural laws of life. Who can blame them?
Even if that were true, technology would merely provide distraction from that, not a solution.
I do not like the way you view human nature. Why is it ‘just’ flesh and blood, but on the other hand, you glorify machines and technology? What are our bodies if not machines that are made of carbon-molecules in comparison to the metal that most technology is made of?
Illness can be bad, yes, but then even technology can not fix that.
“I do not like the way you view human nature. Why is it ‘just’ flesh and blood, but on the other hand, you glorify machines and technology?” I don’t glorify machines, but, you must admit even as you type that they do have of connecting people who in the normal world would never have spoken to each other?
“What are our bodies if not machines that are made of carbon-molecules in comparison to the metal that most technology is made of” They’re not machines. This is one of the most fatal and inappropriate analogies used by scientific writers. The human body and mind are actually the antithesis of the machine. We’re very different to machines in almost every conceivable way.
True enough. Then again, were it not for my lack of roots, the need may never have arised. But to be fair, one has to wonder whether civilization is a good or a bad here. Who knows how much rape, incest and otherwise horrible stuff happens in tribes, but is never talked about.
Explain.
The simple fact that we don’t operate on the purely computational rules of software programs that are the DNA of machines is perhaps the most obvious difference.
That may change when we invent quantum computers. But take away this free will component and think just about the body part. Muscles, tendons, bones, the nervous system.
It is no coincidence that robots are in many aspects – like all technology – imitations of nature.
Robots are at best very imperfect imitations of human nature. The Japanese are the experts in this field and still after 50 years it takes a computer the size of a large building to program even a basic robot to do “human things” like picking up a mug or opening a door.
We’ll never invent quantum computers based on the current rules of computing. It’s a logical impossibility.
See, I got you from putting technology over humans to putting humans over technology. I am satisfied.
Well, yes, technology that does not serve our needs is not only useless but potentially dangerous in the long term.
We’re self sustainable and can create machines
Technology makes us weak. The reason the West has become so fragile is not the rise of SJW in the 1960s but rather the over-reliance on technology.
I agree. Pilots for example are reduced to the status of machine operatives in the newest generations of aircraft- on a 12 hour flight the total amount of time a pilot has to manually fly the plane is less than 3 minutes.
We operate on a complex neural network of weighted decision making through which ever input reaches the brain intact.
Other than the fact that the system is so complex as to be non computable, the brain does actually operate on computational rules.
You are right in that quantum computing will not be based on the same rules as non quantum computing.
So what you say is a logical non sequitur, but it is a practical possibility. The new rules of quantum computing requires the mind of a Neanderthal!
“The new rules of quantum computing requires the mind of a Neanderthal!” It’s well known that Neanderthals where less aggressive than homo sapiens, had a much more developed capacity for abstract representatives through pictorial and symbolic systems and also buried their dead in graves with quite elaborate rituals that suggested they believed in some type of afterlife.
The remnants of these instincts were perhaps pasted on through limited reproduction between both species. It’s hard to determine what we’d be like without this process, but, in strictly orthodox Darwinian terms we were the more successful species, simply because of our greater propensity for violence and aggression.
In a sense a pure Neanderthal could to us either represent what a self-actualized man would have been like, or, others would contend this is what a weakened and emasculated man would be like. However, in making the later statement we’re doing so based upon our own instincts of might is right- this is Homo sapien’s definition of masculinity- still it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the correct one.
“We operate on a complex neural network of weighted decision making through which ever input reaches the brain intact.” I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. An input is not the same as the actual stimulus that’s registered as “a something” sensation by our minds. The majority of inputs are never registered as distinctive stimuli. Our minds are only ever aware of bodily states at a holistic level. I have a pain in my left arm is a local event that registered as an holistic sensation by my mind. When it comes to tracing these pathways they’re not really deducible to source by tracing things back to the neural level of inputs.
“Other than the fact that the system is so complex as to be non computable, the brain does actually operate on computational rules.” I think it’s better to state that certain process in the brain can be made to function on strictly computational rules in highly controlled environments- however- the phenomena and states that are produced even in these very controlled cases are way beyond the computational decision making that computers use. The difference between our decision making “outcomes” as observed in the real world and that of a computer are vast. Even, in chess when the computer beats a human being, its rules can be known, while our rules are not.
I think you just made my point by describing the nature of neural networks. I could have used a better phrase rather than describing input as singular plural entity or implying intactness is necessary.
What Im saying is that it is apparently complex but ultimately deterministic like the decisions of an insect, but with more variables.
Once the quantum algorithms for weighted networks are worked out we will not be misundersanding each other and correcting misinterpretations, the whole statement becomes obvious.
As a non violent, visually creative systems engineer with a long line of indigenous northern brit dna protected from infection by cro magnon dna by mountains and the subjugation of whatever elite made it to london, I self identify only with the neanderthal aspects.
I dont care what traits other people think are masculine, I like making computers do things better than humans.
Good on you! I love Yorkshire and the coastline of Northumberland especially this time of year. There’s a bleak wildest and desolation about the moors and the north sea that makes me feel quite sublime on the inside. Few places or seasons have this affect on me, so I guess, there’s a bit of the Neanderthal in me too.
“Once the quantum algorithms for weighted networks are worked out we will not be misundersanding each other and correcting misinterpretations, the whole statement becomes obvious” I don’t mean to be the devil’s advocate, but, one significant problem in developing any type of artificial intelligence that even vaguely approximates human behavior is surely the role of the subconscious? How can we develop algorithms for a state that’s both vital to our sense of self, but, also completely unpredictable in the intuitive and symbolic readings we understand in our dreams or through hypnosis.
Even in our daytime world, the role of the subconscious and subliminal cues about the way we act, especially with regard to our powerful sexual instincts and the repression of them by our need to be “civilized” is surely something we barely understand about ourselves as of yet.
This is why, not withstanding the mathematical issues, I’m still fairly pessimistic that we’ll ever be able to produce any type of intelligence, either robotic or purely cybernetic that can do, even vaguely, what human beings currently do. The truth is that I probably don’t want there to be one created either. I’m afraid, I have my prejudices too!
They have made a 128-quibit processor already. However even when computers have more computational power than a human brain, a computer can never completely simulate the human mind. A computer is made by man and finding a complete program to ur self is like computer program trying to generate a program describing itself, it will go on forever.
Plus godel incompleteness theorem states any system based on binary (true or false) mathematical logic which computers are based on cannot be consistent and complete.
I agree. Godel’s incompleteness theorem is one of the most powerful impediments to developing a system that’s complete and self-consistent in its operational protocols.
The other problem relates to devising algorithms that can generate realistic software that approximates human states which meaningfully allow random interactions with objects in the ,especially sensory objects in the world. How does one covert the water of “sense datum” (if it even exists) in into the wine of visceral experiences? You’d need to create a person to do this and still the person no more than the functioning washing machine wouldn’t know how or indeed why it works the way it does!
The solution of course to this is not through AI by through the manipulation of human genetics- rather than going from inorganic-organic it will be the opposite. In other words technology will become an integral part of every person’s DNA in the future- from our conception- to our death. That’s the future. It may be bright, but Frankenstein’s monster should caution our optimism.
They can create smarter and more powerful computational machines, it is just that they won’t be complete. Genetics will be interesting especially with nanotechnology fixing cellular damage. But even genetic engineering has unexpected consequences.
Yes. Graphine, human to ai interface, mind controlled computers, genetic tampering, Et3 or hyperloop high speed transportation and brain hacking are all in our future.
With the dysgenics right now only anarchy and no tech is our future.
Also, with the current dysgenics going on we should be happy if current tech can be maintained….
That’s idealistic nonsense
I completely agree that they will never succeed with their plans but this is the “end game” for the elites. They want to live forever, they want to become Gods. Sane men won’t let them get away with this madness that’s why they are so afraid of us.
These people cannot accept that all of us will one day die. There money and resources will not save them from dead or eternal damnation to hell.
The elite seek power and control to fill their pathetic lifeless souls. They are all empty inside and they truly believe that eternal life and domination will fulfill them somehow.
One can draw parallels to the zombie consumers also. They need the validation of likes on Facebook and the latest waste of time gadget to validate their existence. It’s quite sad
That would actually be fun. Would not want to be such a thing, but to chat with such a thing? Cool.
Chatting to a transhumanist cyborg does not sound like much fun to me Tom. Besides most likely it would be a trendy tech faggot (TTF) and who the hell would want to converse with that.
Me, I would do that. Think how you could tease it. I would tell it about my beautiful cock and how sad it is that that mind is caught without a body.
But, you know, it is certainly a ridiculously high developed hubris that makes one believe one’s mind deserves conservation. Truly funny.
As Roosh state in his articla, non Black (particularly Whites) have Neanderthalian genes. Neanderthals heavily relied on “technology” (or whatever you could call it at the time) and had low fertility rate. That could explain a lot.
“I can’t decide if it takes more faith to believe in evolutionary
theories of early man or believing in the story out of Genesis with Adam
and Eve.”
Science answers the question “How?” via the scientific method.
Religious stories and evolution are attempts to answer “Why?”
If humans are products of evolution, then life has no purpose and meaning, and ethics and morals are irrelevant: eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
If humans were created by a superior being, then all things should be done in relation to the value system of that being. Fortunately it is not a mystery.
Solomon, a man who “had it all (intelligence, wealth, power, and 1000 women harem)” according to our standards once wrote a book detailing his conclusion on the purpose of life, and gave us his conclusion:
“Fear [reverence] God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
There is always the middle road, that genesis is meant to be taken metaphorically.
Similarly, there is Plato’s Noble Lie, something society has forgotten.
Then again Atheists will say that noble lies are not needed to behave in certain ways. Reason and empiricism is enough.
I did enough reasoning as an atheist and the only thing that sounds good to me is to fuck drink and eat and get high. To over come that I have to be somewhat spiritual. There’s a balance.
Unfortunately most people are not reasonable, and are incapable of spelling empiricism. Let alone use it.
Bonobo chimps are very interesting, representing a bit of human evolution frozen in time. E.g
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/.premium-1.688724
Bonobos as in feminist’s ideal sexually egalitarian non-violent ideal
No thanks
I said they are interesting. Not ideal. Their lack of evolutionary progress is from their access to plentiful resources and (perhaps more importantly) their matriarchal social structure.
A bonobo is the closest thing to the “missing link”.
fair enough, that seems like a relevant point – matriarchy doesn’t make for a dynamic society
I guess it was a case of wishing to see no evil – monkeys
Bonobos and elephants are as good as matriarchies will get.
How is using sex as a currency for favours a feminist ideal? Bonobos evolved a separate culture based on there being no need to compete for food, they turned into lazy hippies.
I would say exploiting sex as a currency is exactly what feminist do even if they say the opposite. Feminism is not and never has been what is says on the box.
But how? Would you clarify this?
I dont see the similarities between Bonobos and feminists, although I see a clear comparison between chimpanzees and humans using sex as exclusive rights of those in power rather than trading it to get status.
Maybe the bonobos are neanderthals and the chimps are human! But truly it struck me that the male apes are still deciding how it is, the bonobos are happier and dont need to limit food or sex to the top level, thus they evolved.
Matrilinearity and female rule. I doubt male bonobos are “happy”…
Feminists idealize Bonobo society – it’s pure utopianism but of a slightly perverse variety. Bonobos rub themselves against anything and everyone, and display a degree of gender fluidity which is like catnip to feminists. Still sex positive Bonobos are still vastly more sex positive than feminists are. Bonobos are sex positive about the actual sex whereas feminists are sex positive only with respect to the idea of ‘equal’ rutting. And that’s the thing with feminists there’s always a difference between what they idealise / say and the reality on the ground.
You mention not limiting sex to the top level, but that’s what it will always be whenever feminists get their way. The ideal feminist society (monkey wise) is theoretically Bonobo, but in practice it would resemble Mountain Gorrilla society – with one crucial difference. The alpha males (gorillas) feminism in their crypto-hypergamy always obsess over (whether to fuck or to complain about) actually are more rather than less violent, and more domineering and more power obsessed. In the wild chimps are violent, but in human society ordinary men, who are here likened to chimps, end up getting the blame for what the psycho alphas at the top actually do.
The one insurmountable problem with the theory of Natural Selection is the relative scarcity of primary transitional forms that have been discovered. Theoretically, the Earth should be littered with skeletons from forms of life that didn’t adapt to their environments and in many cases we should be able to trace a defining and unwavering line that details the diversity and variety of these evolutionary transitional or dead end forms of life.
To date, we’ve essentially been unable to find any of these forms in the field- and without this essential evidence- the whole theory lacks any supporting grounds for one of its key claims, namely that successful life forms are created by a whole succession of failed life forms. Where’s the evidence to make this claim?
Actually, this is not such a big problem. Everything in the human body decomposes. It is a happy circumstance if a skeleton happens to be preserved due to its environment.
I’m talking about fossils that should have preserved these intermediary forms in rock formations that are of the same age as other specimens that have been discovered. I’m not talking about human remains that have been buried in soils that acidify and destroy all skeletons eventually.
Ah. Well, it is an interesting point. Maybe there were animals that ate the bones. For example, there are birds that feed exclusively on bones. These birds live in the mountains, above the tree line. I saw a documentary about some Hindu tribe that cuts people apart when they die and lets the birds eat the body up.
This seems highly improbable as an answer to this major lack of verifiable evidence.
Why so? Bacteria, worms, birds, carnivores, the seasons, soil. You name it. It is a cycle of life.
What explanation do you propose instead?
Again you throw up some other notion unrelated to what you originally objected to. Cycles of life as a concept have nothing to do with what I was discussing. I think you do this to deflect away issues you cannot address.
I am bringing up these notions in the sense of: Everything lives. Everything feeds off something else. Even when you can not see any living organism in a deserted rock landscape, there is a lot going on that can eat up those bones.
My attempt is one to explain the lack of found fossils. You do not have to accept my proposal and it may be false, although I find it very plausible. Why do you think my reasoning unable to provide explanations for the lack of fossil evidence?
What am I deflecting away?
You’ve an uncanny way of being very honest but also deflecting issues you’re not willing to argue about after making a statement. I’m not sure whether or not this is done consciously on your part.
I am not aware of this. Please point out in which way I am doing this, the idea intrigues me.
Only you can answer this question and not I.
Well, you said I was deflecting. So what am I deflecting from? I thought this was about our discussion here. Am I mistaken?
What makes you say I am deflecting in the context of our interaction here?
I explained this in the context of a statement you made earlier about fossils. In response you brought up issues that had not bearing on the matters that you originally attempted to answer in this post through obscure references to bacteria and worms. Anyway, you more than anyone else should know the reason behind why you do this, surely?
Bacteria and worms aid decomposition and thus destruction of fossil evidence. I think this ties in pretty neatly with my point.
They don’t aid decomposition in calcified rock. That’s what I was talking about.
Ah, now I get your confusion.
Yes, but to calcify, it has to be preserved long enough or happen to fall into some kind of mud or swamp that shields it from the environment or whatever. Like mummies (not mud, but you get my point) or most fossil finds.
Normally, someone dies and the flesh and bones just lie around in the open air and decompose. No?
How convenient, so only the sucessful species have their remains preserved and the dozens of failed species have their bones to be devoured by virus and whatnot. And evolutionists wonder why no one with half a brain believes blindly in their theory.
I am not aware of a great lot of remains of successful species. Enlighten me.
It was my reply to your implicit assertion that we have not been able to find intermediate and failed species because their bones have vanished completely and that we are lucky that only the successful ones have been preserved, one way or another.
Ah. But you are aware that even the finds we have are very scarce, right? It is not like we have a great seemless collection, which is what Roosh criticizes.
Hence I am not a believer in the theory of evolution, at least as it is taught today. Traditional evolution theory rejects the possibility of evolutionary leaps caused by cosmic radiation surges or things like that which might explain why there is practically zero evidence in the fossil record of intermediary species.
Well, you can certainly combine classical evolution with cosmic rays. After all, those are real. No need to be conservative about it.
Here’s a speculative sequence for bipedalism:
1. First learn to sit. This frees your arms for work.
2. Stand up. Now you can reach for things.
3. Move around a bit, howsoever clumsily. Now you can carry things.
4. Move around comfortably. With ease. Now you can use weapons.
5. Learn to run. Now you’re fully bipedal.
It’s only when you reach stage 4 that you might be vulnerable to predators.
My wife has given birth to 8 children for me. She is a happy, feminine, sweet, thin, and pretty woman.
I have come to believe that my wife’s success at being happy and normal has a lot to do with her having 8 babies for me. Pregnancy, nursing, and raising children provides a profound sense of worth and it also triggers in the husband a strong sense of protection, income-earning, and investment in the mother.
I have begun to suspect that Femininazism is caused by women NOT being pregnant. For 100,000s of years, women were either breastfeeding or pregnant as you article notes:
“In contrast, a typical hunter-gatherer woman starts menstruating when she is sixteen, and she spends the majority of her adult life either pregnant or nursing,”
The biological hormones associated with pregnancy and breastfeeding are the most powerful that she will feel or experience.
When did women’s happiness numbers start crashing universally in America: 1950s – when women stopped having more than 2 children.
My advice for men:
Marry a sweet virgin girl before she’s corrupted. Have lots of babies. It will be hard on you, but good for you in the long run. Maintain game/frame with wife (and children!). Convert to Catholicism. Outbreed the Mohammadans. Live a long life with the wife of your youth, whom you deeply love for populating planet earth with decent and honorable humans (that look like you).
Here’s a video showing our family in action: https://youtu.be/mMZer2orCpE
Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall, PhD
I find it odd how you post a video to portray your family and then always blend in those pompous ‘Marshall Family’ texts. Seems quite narcissistic to me. And it also feels kinda fishy to me that I can – as a total stranger – be in your living room. This is also the reason why I do not like to befriend people’s personal Facebook accounts. I do not want to know somebody’s private life unless I feel like I somehow deserve it.
Nevertheless, seems like you are having fun.
It is interesting how diverse your kids look despite sharing the same parents. One with freckles, the boys with similar, but still distinct faces. Everyone a unique person. Nature is wonderful, is it not. You do have a pretty wife.
“You do have a pretty wife.” If I didn’t know you I would say that sounds kind of creepy.
Right. Guy posts a video of his family on the internet to total strangers and it is me who is creepy for saying that his wife is pretty – which is obvious.
Come on.
What’s the big deal with him posting a video about his family anyway. Youtube has loads of such videos accessible to anyone.
I just find it braggish and silly. As if his kids were something special, aside from the fact that they are unique and lovable human beings.
The fact that many do it does not mean it is not somehow off. That is just my perception, of course. Maybe even a bit dishonest. After all, I also watch porn.
But I think it should be clear around these part that following the mainstream does not necessarily make something the right choice for a particular person.
I didn’t think he was bragging, but, yes it is a bit cheesy alright. Well, I don’t think you could ever be accused of following the mainstream.
Fair enough.
Looked to me like he was showing it to back up his post, that he does in fact have a big happy family, and something to aspire to.
You should get out of your flat by yourself instead of posting around the Manosphere all day everyday and hating on guys who post of nice Christmas vid of their family. How many sites do you post to? 15?
What are you trying to do, shame me for spending time on the internet? Amusing attempt.
I am not hating on anybody, you silly man. Just speaking my mind. Also, your generalization is wrong. How many guys have I hated on who posted nice Christmas vids of their families?
If you like it, fine. You can watch it all day if you want.
I posted it because most people assume that if you have a “large family,” then you’re Amish, cross-eyed, and your wife wears a denim jumper and keds.
Fair enough. Still corny.
I don’t see nothing narcissistic about it, I myself will like to have a big family. I prefer to see a big Christian family than a bunch liberal atheist freaks or muslim fanatics.
No, not having a largr family. Posting such a srylized video of its members publicly.
He’s a public figure (has his own Youtube channel, professor,etc.) so it’s understandable.
What the fuck is a public figure? He is a dude. Showing off his family shows a magnified sense of self-importance. If the outside world reflects this back at him, oh well, that does not make it any less pathetic.
Man you have to chill a bit. Be more outgoing, less an observer and more a doer.
It was a nice video that at the same time gives an example of the traditional family in action – you are reading a bit too much into it in my opinion
I am not reading anything into it. I find it silly, that is all.
The only traditional thing about it is the clothes and the setting. Other than that, I just see happy kids properly dressed up who could just as well be not traditional. This whole ‘traditional Christian family’ thing sounds like a fucking stupid status symbol to me. A pious ‘keeping up with the Joneses’.
Oh look, my kid said ‘Jesus’. What a nice obedient god-revering little faggot!
Thanks for illuminating a bit more of your perspective. The way I view it the key to a healthy society and a fulfilling life is the ‘traditional Christian’ family. If I decide to start a family, it will be on this model as the one most conducive to my happiness and the happiness of my children.
I’m still deciding on a philosophy of a life, and leaning between hedonism and stoicism . But currently I think I will satisfy my hedonistic urges in my youth for a few years (i.e. fuck girls, live the party life), then look toward starting a family and adopting a more mature outlook and fully implementing Stoic principles in my late twenties. Like I said, still need to think it out a bit.
While you are free to do what you wish, many of us here aspire to this ideal of the traditional family that is being destroyed – primarily because of feminism.
If you ever think of raising children, the way I see it the traditional Christian family model is the only way to do it.
See, you think like many do. You seek for a finished product out there that you can apply to your life. Why? You have – especially today – the freedom to invent and live any sort of life you can think of. You do not need to apply ‘Christian family’ or ‘stoicism’ or ‘hedonism’. You can just follow your gut throughout your life and do whatever makes you happy at that time. No need to plan this stuff, really.
I can have family with a faithful wife and kids and be happy and have traditional role models even, but I can do all that without it being ‘Christian’. It is just a franchise.
Whatever you like about a Christian family, you can use in yours. Everything else, you can just discard. You do not even need to be thinking about it. It is enough to soak up the ideas and let them work in your subconscious. Then you will automatically always make the choices that are best for you.
Christians Really need to Start Popping out kids, otherwise the Syrian Refugees will outnumber everyone and will force everyone to say Allahu Akbar by sword of the Prophet, Not me though…
So what makes you better than a leftist preacher of welfare? ‘Somebody should’. ‘But not me’.
I mean your not going to find me saying Allahu Akbar.
you just did!
Oh Oh Ohh OHhhhhHHHhhh!!! , You got Me! 😀
I bet a resolved psychopath could take this as a challenge and get you to do it. People are savages.
They can do their worst, I won’t praise their false God before my God.
Well, say you were put in a cellar and every time you failed to praise Allah, you would get either raped, somebody would cut off a finger, you would get fed with shit, you would be ‘stimulated’ with mild neurotoxins, your senses overstimulated, sleep deprived, then bombarded with suggestive propaganda that your exhausted mind would suck up in desparation just to distract itself from the pain, all that to the point of severe trauma.
What do you say?
God Grant me the Strength To Persevere.
No offense, but I think you are being naive.
No offense taken, I pray neither of us end up in that scenario , it seems like a scary place with the Influx of immigrants hitting Europe. The western world may in a short time Find itself being put to the test.
Yeah, let us hope so. Seeing what simple emotional abuse from a mother can do to a boy’s mind, you really do not want to dig too deep in that.
Is it Bad In Germany have you noticed more Immigrants?
I am alone in my flat most of the time, so I do not give a shit.
But the only people you ever hear roaming the streets and growling and shouting – apart from football championship season finales – are Arabs. Turks, to be precise.
They simply have that unashamed kind of masculinity more than the German guys, I think. But that is just pure speculation, really, as I do not interact too much.
One time, I walked the street and stared at a bulky Turk with his girl. He stared back and shouted ‘What do you want?’ in a brusqe manner. I have never experienced a German person doing that – it surprises me when they even hold eye contact.
Still, I may be using selective memories to support a biased opinion here, so take it with a grain of salt. I do like to eat Doener Kebap and the Germans do not make them.
“They simply have that unashamed kind of masculinity more than the German guys, I think”
The Anglo Man has been broken of his Pride, that’s why the Arab Man knows he can call him out and if the Anglo man retaliates the Arab Man can always Cry “I am a Poor Victim of Racism by de white Man”, white Men need to start mobilizing or soon the Arabs will be fucking the white Man’s wife and unless the white Man says anything other than a thank you for it, he’ll be subjugated as a Racist. Western countries are Defeating themselves through political Correctness.
“Soon the Arabs will be fucking the white Man’s wife ” already happening across Europe. Maybe the white man is somewhere in Asia breeding !
Getting up at 4 or 5 am every day from child hood for the first of five prayers that day before all of your colleagues or co-workers (who notice when you are not there) is pretty much brainwashing. That the murderer of an apostate muslim is considered righteous and innocent at some level is also rather intimidating, not that liberal care.
On the other hand, I hear Catholic school is not so much better in regards of wanting to hear your individual ideas.
No but a Christian school upbringing is the best for so many other reasons, mostly for morality, Christian values & discipline, and better peer groups. Presbyterian is best to counter too much of the evangelical influence. This is especially true for girls nowadays.
morality, Christian values & discipline, and better peer groups
Which you only value due to your own conditioning, making the argument false. It is the same kind of disgusting mindless drone indoctrination.
Sad for you. Which of the 3 do you have issues with? Who could argue with values & discipline.
Sad? About what? About my independent mind that rejects bullshit?
Discipline is fine. Values too. But the adjective Christian rubs me the wrong way.
Atheist, agnostic? Spirituality is a wonderful thing even if you reject religion.
I am spiritual, but not religious.
Ok I hope you are happy. 🙂 Although I’m not currently attending church and pretty Live and Let Live, my presbyterian upbringing was great for giving me a less selfish path rooted in better values. Have you seen the narcissist coddled babies in colleges now. And the girls – no self respect. Ugh
Selflessness is brainwashing. The only person who is ever truly and honestly altruistic is the one who does so because she wants to do it, not because her conditioning leaves her no other path. ‘Better values’ is quite a relative statement. How do you judge ‘better’ if not against the self? The self is your best judge, but when you get forced into those strict value systems, you get disconnected from it and your whole goodness becomes formulaic and meaningless.
In other words: You say ‘better’, because it is the only thing you feel comfortable believing in. Your upbringing made sure of that.
But yes, it would be my guess that a woman rather harmonizes with unselfish values, since her instinct tells her to serve and care for others.
Well it’s all better than the alternative. To serve others bring perspective, gratitude, empathy and depth to ones life. It’s up to the individual as to how much, if at all, they are affected. It’s not forced; it’s just introduced. Compare that to the -me me -millennials of today. Do you find the more hedonistic or liberal upbringing in teens a healthier and more desirable path? Oh well…I’m not pleased with the feminist or progressive movement myself.
What I dislike about feminism is that it tells me what to do. Other than that, I look forward to a long life of whoring around and engaging in all the debauchery I can think of. Of having all the plentiful, mesmerizing, wild and intimate experiences that come into my mind. That is the freedom it brought about.
Maybe I can even seduce some naive Christian girls, that would be fun.
As for millenials, they are too whiny. That is their weakness. But in the end, they are just protesting against a world that more or less left them hanging, which I fully empathize with.
Well I guess that’s one way to look at it. Sounds like you are just game for anything and anybody. The most liberal lifestyle. It’s almost like animals. So this liberalism that drives me crazy suits you. I can’t stand the progressive movement – no standards or constraints. Most guys I know may think they like it, but are deeply unfullfilled in the long-run. No emotional or intellectual connections. Hope you are happy – we are all so different.
You are thinking in extremes. Yeah, many are not happy with it. To them, it is addiction. Me, I just want to enjoy pleasurable momets. Sometimes with, sometimes without connection. Yeah, we all end up living the lives we want and need. Perhap s you just do not desire that kind of experience, perhaps you lie. Who knows, all is good.
Well prob has something to do with maybe your independent streak, your upbringing, your environment maybe not being rooted in traditional values, and being male. That’s ok. No maybe if I lived in some completely different environment – total liberal, perhaps, but I doubt it. We all go with what our best options are, given what assets we can bring to a relationship. Most females would reject drifting around. I’ve had one long term relationship after another since I was 18, without much more than a week or 2 in between – so I have no idea. Was even engaged but I broke it off / came from a divorced family. I’m prob not a drifter type like you, I’m thinking. 🙂
“They simply have that unashamed kind of masculinity more than the German guys, I think”
I would wager it is because these men are left alone by the system, so they are allowed to be masculine; but it is entirely different for a white anglo german boy growing up under feminist doctrine.
Well, how is serial monogamy different from ‘drifting’? Sounds like rationalization. I never said that my goal was to fuck a bunch of pussies I do not even like, just to throw them out the same night. I do not mind trying a relationship. But I do not want to commit or stay monogamous. So the woman who would want to be in a relationship with me would need to accept that I may occasionally fuck around. It makes sense that a woman would not want more than one man, because she wants to submit. But that does not necessitate the man to be committed exclusively to her, so comparing boht our situations is a bit silly.
Christians or Catholic don’t want to kill you for dropping your religious beliefs. The Muslims do.
Maybe. The first 7 or 8 years, I lived in a migrant area. Mostly Turks. Got into trouble with them all the time. Maybe it was really just me who was damaged for fighting them, but still, even years later, I came by and saw them coming home with bruised faces from some kind of massive fight. There was literally a group of 50 Turks roaming the street. Funny how I completely forgot about this incident.
They had kind of sad looks in their faces, rotten kinds of clothes. I remember that they used to speak Turkish in those first years of school. The teachers would urge them to speak German, but they did not care. Frankly, I was more angry at the teacher for not letting them be. I thought to myself: I am Czech. If I had a Czech friend here, I would not want that stupid whore to tell me not to use our language.
Wow Mr Arrow, you think Whoring around will leave you satisfied? What about the damage you might do to someone. What about having children and passing on something to the next generation. My father died with me holding his hand.
Selfishness like Selflessness is ultimately extremely painfull for a human being. We are vessels for genes and they will punish you with painfull feelings of loneliness, isolation and guilt if you do too much of one over the other.
Well, these days they do not.
Why would it do damage to anyone? If anything, it is to be pleasurable for both. I am not planning on raping anybody. Besides, it is impossible in life to not occasionally do damage to someone. It is the way things are.
What does your father have to do with this? I mean, yeah, it is nice to have intimate relationships, but the sole prospect of not dying alone seems illusory, since that is ultimately always a lonely and personal experience. If you can not love yourself, you can not receive it from others anyway.
Independent mind…hahahaha. Unless you were raised by wolves in a mountain far away from other humans, mysteriously learn to read and write, you only are spouting second hand ideas you cannot really justify. Christianism is the thing responsible for almost every achievement in the west for the last 2000 years, even for the misused freedom of expression.
Neither Islam, let alone atheism have achieved much besides mountains of corpses in the case of the latter.
I am not sure where you are going with this. Your notion of an independent mind is a ridiculous abstraction I never proposed. What I mean is that I pride myself in being able to hold contradictory ideas without going all panicky just because I am not following the ‘right’ doctrine. I can see good and bad in Christianity, but I generally despise any organized thought system, because it hinders intuition.
Well, I am not sure if that is true. Not informed enough to have an opinion, but I suspect that it is once more an exaggeration. If simply for the fact that even most Christians that built civilization likely were not all profoundly pious and rather superficially obedient.
Carl Sagan was an atheist and was a smart and confident mind in my eyes.
Drifting is more whoring around. Serial monogamy is not even what I’m speaking about. I’m talking long-term relationships with less than 5 people, with technically no loss of virginity until later age 21. Yay!
Most guys I’ve dated want to do what you are doing until maybe late 20s, early 30s. Then they seek a future youngish good girl with values. One who they share a lot of intellectual, emotional, and sexual chemistry with to start a monogamous family. That’s the ideal. And that’s my current situation.
But good thing you’re a guy; only certain feminists seek that lifestyle. Ugh -depressing to me personally.
I hear ya Tom, but really, if anyone goes to another country to live they should learn the language and respect the customs, period.
What you are saying makes sense. For settling down, a virgin makes a lot of sense. Once the first man’s cum gets into her organism, I figure that it kinda marks her. Like a dog peeing on a tree.
Nobody on this world does anything they can avoid doing.
By disenfranchising white men through affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion policies, the system succeeds in making white men less desirable not just by their own domestic women but by women from abroad as well. The agenda is to simultaneously lower the desirability of white men while increasing the desirability (financial prospects, education, etc.) of other races.
Because the kebabs can use the muh culture excuse for any forward or belligerent behavior. They can’t help it doncha know: they’re just so hot-blooded just like the Latinos.
I do not hate their behavior as much as I want to find the freedom to behave the same way. Then again, many of them are likely just doing it out of insecurity. Which is not a good long-term goal.
I think the key is numbers. As you mentioned, it is not uncommon for them to travel in packs or herds. They know no matter what they say or do, they have the support of their friends. There is no chance of looking a fool. No matter how inane their comments or come-on lines, they have 4 or 5 friends goading them on and providing encouragement. The coloreds in the US behave the same way. On the subway, a lone black or Hispanic will stay quiet. The only time they are emboldened to chat up the women or start singing for change is when they are in a group.
Ooh-such romantic words…swoon
That is true. It is really amazing what a little pack does to your confidence. I rather like it. But I also like not to need it. Not entirely related, but this reminds me of a time I sat in a subway all on my own and whistled. A girl a few seats away looked at me with annoyance, to shut me up. I waited for the train to halt and then stood up and sat down face to face with her and continued whistling just to annoy her. That was scary, but fun. She was visibly annoyed, but what can a bitch do but make an annoyed face, right?
You know that words are just sounds we make, right? I trust you can let your mind wander to the very romantic real-world representation of that sound.
Yes, I am looking forward to ROK establishing meetups to allow readers / contributors to interact in person. There’s nothing to up one’s game more than an audience of like-minded supporters.
You should have asked her if she’d ever been raped lolz
Acceptable behavior also depends on one’s group identity. Witness how homosexual men get away with saying all sorts of inappropriate, sexist, insulting things to women. Gay men are expected to be catty, caustic, and cutting. That episode of Southpark where Cartman pretends to have Tourette syndrome and gets away with saying anything comes to mind.
I highly doubt Hitler would have given such amazing impassioned speeches had he been speaking in front of a crowd of communists. If he had met with jeers or boos and thrown bottles, his powers of oratory would have been much diminished. Audience and support are key to charisma.
I like conditioning myself against guilt and shame, so it actually comes in handy to be a tall white cis man.
That I should have asked her, yeah. Sounds fun.
Outsourcing much?
How so?
If you’re not a Christian, I understand why you would say “Not me though”, but if you are, maybe you should start banging away, provided of course, that you can support the fruit of your labors. Be fruitful and multiply indeed!
I am a Christian, I was Referring to I won’t say allahu Akbar.
Point taken. Don’t worry, I won’t say it either.
Not just to outbreed the Muslims though, also to outbreed the liberals.
Yes absolutely! But I suspect between Abortion and Homosexuality they’ll self-Extinct. Lol.
Indeed can learn a thing or two from muslims plus the biggest issue facing Europeans is the treason and cowardice of its elite’s.
Had Ptolemaic Egypt and Persia not been at war thus weakening each other the middle east may not have fallen to Islam.
Syria and Byzantine Turkey may have remained predominantly Christian instead of going to Suuni Islam and Iran may not have gone over either to Shia Islam.
Our peoples may have been great friends, the cultural difference no more than that which we experience between Greek Orthodox and Anglican.
You should know that Roosh has a Persian Shia father and a Turkish mother so a man of Goodwill.
Islam generally allows abortion, yet they do not face the same fertility crisis. Why?
I think Islam TOLERATES abortion as a sometimes necessary evil rather than it ENCOURAGES it.
“You should know that Roosh has a Persian Shia father and a Turkish mother so a man of Goodwill.”
Eeer you know about the Shia practice of self-flagellation during Ma’tam, right? You know Turkey is using ISIL to rebuild the Ottoman empire, right?
Even though I disagree with many of his theories, I have a lot of respect for Roosh. However, saying that his a man of goodwill because he’s half-turkish and half shia persian seems quite strange to me.
My mom was raised in Turkey but she’s Armenian.
Armenian Orthodox or Muslim? I have much respect for Arminian Orthodox.
Roosh, try the theory of genesis:
Roosh articles on anthropology are very interesting. I hope see more in the future!!
They also need to stop following the feel good gospel of Chopra and Joel Osteen.
Never read any of Joel’s stuff but I think I Did hear him say Homosexuality is fine in God’s eye’s, I may be wrong, but if that’s the case it’s wrong.
He does oppose it, but doesn’t preach it openly. He does seem to be more inclined to go for the prosperity gospel. Bad enough that we live in a materialistic world. Plus it’s do saccharine with positive rah rah stuff that after reading some I had to check my insulin.
Good poits Rocky, Yup, Tom. The discussion will resume after this brief commercial break.
Thanks to Progressivism and LGBT support, I too can Be a Mother some day when I grow up!
I prefer the Bible myself 🙂
This video should be shown to every young Girl.
That’s what he says! Then again, that’s what they all say! I follow the Bible!
“He does oppose it, but doesn’t preach it openly.”
By not opposing it, he is preaching its acceptance. The Lord would rather have open enemies than such followers.
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.”
Surveys taken of you girls show that they desire more children than they actually achieve in real life. Having children gets beaten out of them by the environment.
I wouldn’t be surprised
Not christians, white people.
The answer is MORMON.
I’ve Got some Mennonites nearby, I may just have to take a stroll down there sometime.
You wouldn’t believe how many Mennonites I’ve run into in South America. Its rather odd to see a string bean blond guy with hokey overalls in the middle of a Bolivian capital with nothing but short fat indians.
Smart people wait until they can provide for a family. If the pay rate is so shit which it is and the dream is a lie waiting becomes a permanent thing.
What a fantastic post
Where do you find the sweet uncorrupted virginal ladies to marry? Do they go to your church ’cause if so I just might be inclined to move.
I’m having that same issue, around my area they’re few and Far Between, of course the Fatties are virgins but that’s a given.
With society so perverted, I doubt that fatties are virgins.
That’s true, there has got to be some Virgins out there, but no doubt they may hardly exist.
Help them lose the weight or invent a mind transfer machine.
I think a Mind Transfer Machine would be easier, Fat women never seem to want to put forth the effort to lose a few.
The problem is that their minds make them gain the pounds. So who knows, they might even put on weight as machines.
The sociologist are claiming gen Y is having LESS sex. Seems impossible.
You find them at real churches that are traditional and conservative, from families where the mother and father taught their children explicitly: “Save yourself for your spouse.”
If a girl likes to hang out at bars at 19 and pick up joints, chances are she’ll like doing that at 25, 30, 40, and 50. Don’t marry those kind of women.
I’ll follow your advice but it is getting harder to find those kinds of women in American, maybe I’ll look abroad.
Most people do not continue going to bars the way they do when they are younger.
‘Rescuing’ a nice girl at about 25 from that social hell would be an option for finding available women. There are always one or two girls in a group who dress more conservatively, who look less comfortable being in that drinking culture. They are being led by an over confident cromagnon lass in too much makeup who talks about meaningless things.
Spend a little while showing the bored looking girls the value of an intelligent conversation and they will brighten right up and follow you to anywhere that promises to be more human friendly.
Rescuing? Here’s some street wisdom (look for the lyrics if you can’t understand wtf he’s saying)
It was in quotes and is therefore subject to personal interpretation.
Strikes me most people justify their actions with the preferred drama role, I was just popping that in there for the manjinas.
Following on, the only thing you are truly rescuing them from is their dickhead mates, but should she view it as rescuing, one should, of course immediately move along.
Their dick head mates? You mean the guys that are poking her with their penises?
No.
Haha, uncorrupted. Always have to laugh when I hear those judgmental words. Come on, even if a naive girl has her benefits to a man, that does not make another girl ‘corrupted’.
Which brings forth the next question: Why does she need to be an absolute virgin?
If you are looking for ONS, it doesn´t matter if she was banged by 15 guys in the last 24 hours. However such a woman is useless as a wife, let alone a mother.
Maybe. You know, as I get more connected with my instincts, I am realizing why those bad boys like to piss on their girls and why I want to do it. To mark them. To have them soak up my scent through their skin and become mine. I do not think she can ever fully lose it. To have and fuck a girl is to own her and it impregnates you in her mind, body and spirit. Which makes the thought of fucking a whore a bit disgusting, as she is already ‘marked’ as foreign territory. Sounds a bit primitive, but these instincts are fucking real when you get to feel them.
So yeah, there may be something to it.
Well the key words are “to marry,” and it’s a red pill axiom that the more guys a girl’s banged the less marriageable she is. Even if she’s been with only one guy before you the chances of the marriage succeeding drop from 80% to 50%, hence why virginity has always mattered in the, it seems, saner days past.
But if all you’re looking for is a some fun on the weekend with a club tart who you’ll never see again, then yeah it doesn’t matter in the slightest…knock yourself out.
But you do realize that statistics are a flawed predictor of individual cases.
Well of course, statistics is a “forest through the trees” approach which will inevitably miss a few trees. Even so it’s a useful tool for identifying trends.
That said I’m not all that passionate or wedded to defending my side on this. I can anecdotally confirm what you are saying is true for some people. I knew a girl about 10 years back who had at least a few partners before she met her husband and she’s still married. So, yeah, the odds can be beaten.
“that look like you.”
i’m a tall, blue-eyed guy of almost pure scandanavian descent. my ex-wife was a petite little blond with bright blue eyes, pretty much the physical ideal of the typical white separatist/hitler fan. she was also a lying, stealing, cheating narcissist who cared for no one but herself.
current wife is a brown-skinned latina with a thick accent when she speaks english. she was also a virgin when i met her, is devoutly catholic, and sincerely believes that adultery is a mortal sin and that this marriage is the only one she gets. she’s feminine, sweet, and a joy to be around and i trust her with my life (and money).
what i’m saying is, why would i trade current wife for a woman like my ex-wife? where are all you hitler fans planning on finding these white women who are like my wife, minus the brown skin and the spanish?
Given that not all brown-skinned Latina women or white blondes are exactly like your anecdotes, your argument is invalid.
No one is saying you must have white kids, but if you choose to race mix don’t start bitching about the fact that your kids look nothing like you and become dindu nothins who whine about white privilege.
But I’m sure you have nothing to fear, as mestizos and mulattos will surely save western civilization.
“don’t start bitching about the fact that your kids look nothing like you”
not to sound too SJW, but that was the central point of my post, that i struggle to care about skin color. race traitor i know, but i’ve been around the world, learned several languages, etc., and i can’t unsee what i’ve seen. central america definitely has its problems, but it is superior to the US in some ways. take my wife’s family. almost all her young female relatives are thin, attractive, and feminine. most of her family members are churchgoers and decent people. one of her cousins did get a tattoo last year, but the family is still not happy about it. they don’t hate homosexuals, but they see homosexuality as sinful and are baffled by the enthusiasm for it in europe and north america. find me a north american family that has all of that going on for it. not easy.
i wasn’t saying “all latina women good, all blond women bad.” i was saying that hair and skin color are irrelevant, and that since i’ve found a zebra, why should i care that she’s brown-skinned and has little european blood? i don’t buy the idea that my kids will be losers because they’ll have darker skin. seen too much evidence to the contrary. i know the hardcore white supremacists aren’t going to agree, but the differences in performance between the races seem mainly cultural to me, not genetic.
DNA encodes protein. Proteins are all in the brain. If you delete the first exons of synaptobrevin this will make a retarded human. Even if the other chromosome is intact. Haploinsuficiency can occur.
If you delete reelin/dab1 Neocorticogenesis won’t take place.
An average human male have more neocortical neurons than a whale a monkey and a women.
Without neuroliginds and their docking partners you are not more intelligent than a rock, because you have the same synaptic activity than a rock.
I can continue, but I suppose you get the point.
Blaming all WM due to a bad experience is inaccurate. Go to Spain or Italy.
How do you feel about Arabs coming in and claiming all that Hitler pussy for themselves?
if you’re talking about muslim immigrants raping european women, i’m against it.
Not rape I mean how do you feel seeing an Arab or Muslim guy hand in hand with a blonde, blue-eyed girl? What if it was your sister?
it would depend on the arab/muslim. i’ve seen marriages between arab christians and american christians work out well.
in a way i get european women dating middle-eastern guys. an italian ex of mine said she couldn’t stand italian guys because they’re prissy and effeminate. she said that a lot of european women will go for muslims because they’re more masculine.
in the specific case of my sister, i would be against it, since she’s happily married already.
I wonder if you even know you’re not being honest with yourself.
i’ve spent a large percentage of my adult life living in other countries, and i speak several languages. while i heartily agree that mulitculturalism doesn’t work for most people and is a bad idea on a global level, it does work for me in my personal life. that is, i tend to have more in common with and feel more comfortable with educated europeans (especially eastern), latin americans, and even middle easterners. although i’m american, i would have far more “cultural differences” with an american woman than i have with my devout catholic latina wife, for example.
i’m assuming you’re monolingual and have little experience outside of anglo-saxon culture. i understand that it’s impossible for you to wrap your head around the way someone like me sees the world, but i honestly can’t manage to feel upset when, for example, i met a saudi guy at a dinner party a while back and his wife was a pretty blue-eyed american girl. he was a smart guy, obviously works out, way more masculine than the skinny fat tattooed hipsters that infest my hometown. why wouldn’t she go for him over them? why would i rather hang out with the hipster obama/hillary/bernie fans than a guy who is into languages and working out like i am? i get that people like you would have a visceral reaction to seeing one of the white women you pedastalize with any arab, but it just doesn’t affect me.
How would you feel if that same Arab friend of yours would seriously consider killing you if you ever made a move on his hot sister or female relative? Just saying he was like that, do you know why he would be like that?
we’re back to “it would depend on the arab.”
Read above again – “same Arab friend”
oh, if that specific guy were to try to kill me? my first thought is that it would have made that dinner party fairly awkward.
Made me cry
Marry, in this part of the world? And what are the odds of finding a virgin today anyway.
Really inspiring! Love coming on ROK and seeing actual positive stuff once in a while.. I’m a young guy looking for direction in my future (also recently began reading the Bible) so this makes me happy to see. God bless!
I’m curious to know, how old were you and the missus when you met and when you married?
23. She 22.
For me I see latin women, and how much they just absolutely love children and want to play with them(sometimes they look like they might kidnap one!). It makes me wonder how we’ve been able to strip that from our culture so unnaturally.
Latin women are a god sent, when our societies inevitably starts breaking down more and more and tradititional values starts having a revival outside of the manosphere, western women are going to get fire in their ass to keep their place as women when they see latin women trying to replace them.
“My advice for men:
Marry a sweet virgin girl before she’s corrupted. Have lots of babies. It will be hard on you, but good for you in the long run. Maintain game/frame with wife (and children!). Convert to Catholicism. Outbreed the Mohammadans. Live a long life with the wife of your youth, whom you deeply love for populating planet earth with decent and honorable humans ”
That is very hard if not inpossible to do when today’s female is a virtueless, twerking cum bucket, being raised by society and government, and social media; being told she can do whatever she wants to do is ok, and viewing a man as nothing more than a useful piece-of-shit and provider of resources.
I’m happy for you that you managed to have such a nice family. That video you posted is very pleasant to view as it reminds me of the usa before my time, about 50 years ago. But the days of finding a decent female in Amerika are long gone. Raise your boys to be red pill as possible, although I think they will become red pill naturally as I suspect that by the time they hit their mid to late teens we might see a major re-boot in western society and all that is being white-washed and covered up will come to a head and be delt with accordingly.
Beautiful family. And agree with most of what you’re saying. There are so many reasons why female hormonal contraception has messed up women its untrue
Very inspiring video. You should consider putting together an article for ROK readers: I’m sure many would be interested in the logistics of your situation, e.g., your response to the claim that is often thrown around regarding how cost prohibitive it is to have children nowadays. I’m assuming with so many children, your wife is a stay-at-home mom. Perhaps you could share some insight on the finances of having a large family. Clearly, it is possible but many here would like to know more.
I’d be happy to post something either at ROK or at my own blog. Roosh you want something on traditional pariarchical families?
Please do, as a father of four I’d be very interested to read it.
And well done, sir!
This is what I was talking about on another article. Roosh should join forces with groups like yours and the submissive wives movement.
Sounds good except 4 out of 4 virgins I slept with tried to destroy my life. Let’s see going back 18 years one told everyone I got her pregnant and gave her stds, but she was my first. Another wanted to be a virgin again so when I moved away for 2 years she told everyone I raped her. Another had a friend call me to say she killed herself on my answering machine only to mistake hanging up and start talking to her on conference call. The other just vanished. They all became friends and created a click that hated me dragging in non virgins as well. Then when my sjw accusers showed up to spit in my face nobody stood up for me despite having witnesses that were there. So I do say you’re playing with fire with modern virgins. They’re extremely emotionally immature, it can take years to get them to be interesting in bed and they’ll always act like their vagina was some gift from God guilt tripping you about your past. Stay away from American virgins.
The plan is to claim these virgins as your own and marry them. Not pump and dump virgins. You want the cherry, you gotta eat the cake too.
Yeah, but I wasn’t thinking about that in my teens. I dated two of them for months, but they ended being so annoying. The other that left a message gave me an excellent exit strategy. Even these days when I want to break up I just act like a total prick until they move on so they don’t seek heartbreak revenge.
I have dating ptsd.
I hear you can claim disability benefits for that now
Lmao
To all the transhumanists out there, all you shills of the bankers who encourage this technocratic society we’re spilling into, all you supporters and enablers of miscegenation, know this, you’re on borrowed time assholes.
Their trick of extending life won’t work. Everyone dies, in fact they’re already dead, it’s just their egos haven’t caught on to the fact yet.
Life, death, birth, rebirth, it is not a cycle, but rather a spiral, as is existence.
Nice article Roosh. Darwinism is just a theory though. Just don’t be a doctor and say it because you’ll get revoked or loose mainstream business. You think sjws are bad. Try getting a doctorate and challenging the establishment.
Anyway thinking about these things is important. It goes deep into your subconscious and allows you to poke holes in the facade and get a small glimpse into reality. You should check out the giant million year old footprints too. Following society blindly will land you a bitch wife, years of social misery, health problems, a dead end job, or a tool to be used by capitalists for the minimum pay you’ll take.
Interesting read. FYI neanderthals had bigger brains, stronger muscles, and a 5000 calorie diet. A neanderthal women today would be able to keep up with navy seals as long as they had enough rations and the men would on a whole different level. Darwinism states survival of the fittest. Humans were not more fit for survival then poking holes in darwinism again. Also we don’t know anything about society pre meteor/flood. Human skeletons have been dated back almost a million years. We are missing a huge chunk of the puzzle and it’s very likely we were far more advanced in the past. If we create this much in 6000 years imagine 400000 – a million.I struggle to believe we wouldn’t accomplish much more in that time. Hitler for example and the 3rd Reich searched and found a lot of ancient artifacts that modern history could not explain because he believed in pre flood technologies as well. It is most likely these artifacts are buried deep in the ocean under the ground by now. We still haven’t explored our oceans and the navy would most likely classify anything they found so it’s up to actual wealthy researches to get the gear and go treasure hunting.
It still boggles my mind how you can stand by your argument against evolution, when evolution does nothing more than provide a framework for looking at our ancestor’s traits to explain our own. Evolution says: We have traits because our ancestors had them.
Now, when you want to explain how a particular trait survived, that is a discussion within the framework of evolution, but a particular mechanism or method of analysis is not the framework itself.
Well, this is speculation. Maybe bipedalism was not absolute, e.g. we still lived in trees, but evolved bipedalism as an extra for whatever reason. Maybe to make the missionary position more doable. Or the peacock concept: Breasts are prettier than rose-colored butts. So while pure bipedals would be at a disadvantage, combined bipedals may not.
Also, you have to question whether the danger of becoming prey is really that grave. People lived in lots of places. Not all of them are full of alligators, lions and whatever. Add to that that even an occasional loss of a human life would not make the bipedals completely extinct.
Besides, it is ridiculous to say that they could no longer climb trees. I mean, we – today’s humans – can still climb trees, so why do you assume they could not?
Amusing theory about the Neanderthals, I like that one!
But yeah, it is really an interesting question whether people evolved from apes. I have heard no better theory, but who knows. Theoretically, it could really have been aliens, right? Some greys came and fucked some female apes and whoops, there you go.
The whole theory is nonsense European elites just wanted a scientific justification for imperialism
Look at the time period Darwin was born in
How did evolution justify that? Besides, that does not invalidate the theory.
In the West, children are taught that Darwinian evolution apples to all other organisms but humans. They will sit in their biology class and learn about natural selection and survival of the fittest and then go to their civics or government class and learn how we’re all equal. There is a massive cognitive dissonance. Ironically, those who are the most vociferous supporters of evolution and mock creationists are the SJWs.
A big problem is that school never makes it clear that all those are theories, but simply sells them as truths. So you end up running through life chasing for ‘truths’, instead of accepting that uncertainty is a part of life.
Another problem is the text book approach. What the fuck does a kid learn about life and evolution from reading a book? Take them to the museum, show them the bones, then tell them what scientists think about those bones. Then kids can come to their own conclusions. And instead of testing how much they remembered, try to find a way to test their skill and curiosity. Test whether they are able to ask intelligent questions. When you figure that they can not or do not want to after some time, you take them out of the course, because it is not what interests them. A kind of modular school system. Not to give you grades and a ‘status’ and a piece of paper that ceritifies you as an ‘average schoolboy’, but to lead you exactly where you feel you want to be as an individual. When a particular school does not have the teachers and classes you would profit from the most, you can get a transfer. That would be awesome and very doable, I think.
And after school, you do not go apply for jobs with a certificate. Instead you already have a lot of skills and simply find like-minded individuals with whom you can work related to these skills.
So you end up with a nation of unique skilled individuals of whom each pursues his own purpose and passion, not uniformed sheep who, on the paper, are all the same idiots. It depresses me to think about it.
Just a correction: Neanderthals did not die out. They continue in us. We shared 99.7% DNA in common with them. Europids ARE Neanderthals. And they were insanely advanced, having taught Cro-Magnon advanced tool use.
Wait a ticket…..
Different Yup :p
Oh lol!
You are subhuman. You’re going to have to turn in your nazi card.
Back in the oven with you, Schlomo
You are less evolved. Maybe you can change your hair color. lol
Orientals?
Denisovian. Same deal.
Sorry for the foolish username; I made this account for one purpose, as I have renounced social media for its deleterious effects on my mind.
Roosh, can you please read and review a book called “Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin? My namesake listed it as a book of vast importance, and covers an academic’s study of 80 native tribes and major empires, coming to the ultimate conclusion that the only way that societies rise is through strict monogamy and fall at the introduction of females’ interests into politics. This book is very hush hush from the establishment precisely because of how dangerous it is to their ideology, but merely having such a thing widely visible on the internet could save thousands of men and women.
I lack the internet space to spread it myself, and I know I am being ridiculous and obtuse making such a request, but I deeply care about the survival of my culture. Your writing helped me overcome a dark spot in my life where I questioned my purpose and I believe in its ability to reach people.
Sounds like an interesting book.
Here is a thought: Is the equation of ‘civilizations spawn’ with ‘societies rise’ valid? That is, is the formation of great – that is, huge – countries desirable? If so, why? What effects does it have on the happiness of the individual?
The book explains that the prosperity achieved is only possible by giving men complete control over the sexual marketplace, and that once the feminine enters the body politic from the now comfortable society, it decays until the comfort enjoyed from its power is gone. The author insists that this is irreversible, but that technology is not possible without this rise.
Okay, but is prosperity and technology so important? Both seem pointless if for the sake of themselves. Sure, you do not want women in control as they are now. But individual freedom seems like a cool idea.
Technology is necessary to protect against disease and famine. It is also necessary to shield people from the cold, heat, elements, etc. The book is right in that society becomes so comfortable that it forgets it needs this sort of masculinity to avoid calamity.
There is no disease in a sheltered rainforest tribe. Neither is famine. Cold, heat and elements neither. Not saying we should all become noble savages, but it is an alternative worth pondering.
I think/presume that in a given existing society it can remain stable and steadily improve when people are given to more thoughtful reporoductive actions.
Strict monogomy would do that, but evolution requires the variation.
Similarly the culture may evolve faster if only like minded people are making decisions, but it is not guaranteed to go towards being ‘fittest’. It specialises and is therefore at more risk of being wiped out by something more adaptable when the environment changes.
Does he equate the empowerment of women in society with a corresponding development in technology? There is validity to this theory, however, I think the majority of developments in even areas like medicine, like the development of anesthetics were as a result of very masculine pursuits like war and the resultant injuries that were caused on the field. Developments in aviation and global communications systems again were the results of very masculine areas of endeavor.
Is he saying that the feminine once it enters the body politic inhibits or helps the development of technology, I’m not sure from your post which it is?
But the infant mortality rate is almost 50% and a lot of time the mother is taken with them. They also do die from disease, there has just been little study into this area. But even these societies practice monogamy, even with plentiful resources.
The book outlines the practices of 80 such tribes that Unwin studied.
True about monogamy, yes. At least pretty overwhelmingly.
What is your source for the mortality rate?
Sounds good.
The Machiguenga people of Brazil, they often have 8-10 children just to off set the mortality rate. It’s a guess based on the few accounts of the people we have, there are no rigorous studies.
Quite the opposite; he maintains that societies rise when women are monogamous homemakers who remain virgins until marriage. The empowerment of women is shown to feminize politics until simple tasks such as innovation and defense of borders become impossible. As people become less sexually repressed, their sense of duty diminishes until the society is ripe for outside conquest. This happened to Rome and Babylon, the latter of which had recorded examples of alimony and no fault divorce several decades before their fall.
I agree quite strongly with this argument. The crux of the issue relates to whether or not women can be decisive leaders and protectors of a Nation during a time of war or crisis. The answer must be a unanimous NO as women are internally conflicted with emotional issues “and what about the rights of the people attacking us” concerns to make good leaders.
Additionally, the mania where women they need to collectively include every single voice no matter how divergent is wholly inappropriate to the type of leadership that a Nation must have during a time of crisis. Men by nature are singularly much better at making the tough decisive decisions that need to be made at this level. The collective approach women display as “leaders” is fine for developing some type of social policy over a number of months where everyone must be included. In other circumstances it’s not merely inappropriate but dangerous to the National Security of a country.
I think the cause of women viewing even invaders with affection has to do with women not having as much children. The nurturing instinct remains; I have seen this with my childless aunt trying to “raise” other people’s children and Merkel, having no children herself, viewing refugees in such a way even if it is rationalized by her as some expectation for Europe to view her actions as positive. Women are happiest giving birth to and raising children.
No disease, hunger or elemental problems in a rain forest?
Mr. Arrow, you’re smarter than that.
Not so much more than in our culture. Before the West connected with many of the tribes, our Western medicine was not necessary to them, as the bacteria and infections from our world had not reached them. All disease they had, they knew how to cure. Well, somebody always dies. You get my point.
The Roman writer Vitruvius said that man walked upright because it made it easier to socialize.
“And so, as they kept coming together in greater numbers into one place, finding themselves naturally gifted beyond the other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, but upright and gazing upon the splendour of the starry firmament, and also in being able to do with ease whatever they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters.”
Our ability to socialize, especially to form individual talents and trades, I think excels our species.
As for the disadvantage of agriculture, we see the same thing said in theology. Cain sacrificed fruit from the ground to God while Abel gave an animal from his flock. Cain’s gift was rejected and Abel’s accepted. Also, it’s been said that we developed writing from the hunter’s arrow. Hunters put identifying marks on their arrows, which came to include complex symbolism and be used for meaningful ceremonies and interactions between tribes.
The quote you mentioned says nothing about socializing, but reflects the ancient sentiment that man walks upright because he is rational and cunning, and is made to contemplate the heavens.
Well okay, it was more the result of socializing, per Vitruvius. Vitruvius says, just before that quote, that the discovery of fire brought people together and led to the invention of language and “social intercourse.” This in turn made them gifted above the other animals and able to walk upright so that they could contemplate the heavens. And so, the hands of men came to be used for building and construction. I think there is something to this, though I believe in the divine origins of man.
Ah, thank you. I had not read the context of the passage, and that is good to know. The general idea that man was made to walk upright and contemplate the heavens, was a commonplace in Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It’s nice to know what else Vitruvius said about it.
Yes I should imagine the invention of fire provided a rather significant selection mechanism in favour of those able to suck up to the fire bringers.
The lack of Neanderthal DNA, unique skull structure (simian shelf), increased bone density, coarse wooly “hair”, and other biological differences between african negroes and every other breed of human on the planet are why they should really be classified as a different species. Several recent discoveries in China and Russia have disproven the Out Of Africa theory that all humans evolved from africa. It appears that human ancestors evolved in several parts of the world, eventually cross-breeding with the higher-thinking Neanderthals producing offspring that mastered fire and domesticated wolves.
From my Biology class, to be in the same species you have to be able to successfully breed with the individual, and your offspring should successfully breed as well. This is kind of shaky but holds up with our current species.
Black people can reproduce with all other humans, therefore despite large physical differences we are the same species.
The rule isnt “if they can breed they are the same species” the rule is “if they CANNOT breed they are not the same species” big difference there.
You really need to look at bone structure rather than the superficial adaptations based on the local weather/environment if you want to justify racism. You only need 7 generations to change one breed of dog to another.
But of course, you are a troll and you dont care about accuracy.
Why dont you accurately lick my asshole, troll.
Let’s not do this again. I tell you what you are and you escalate and exaggerate as if to feign indignation but actually demonstrating an intense knowledge if how to be a dick who is terrible at pretending to be a confident young girl with supposedly indepenednt thoughts.
I’ll not bother responding again and you will go away feeling like you won.
And so it will cycle until those feelings of trolling success become the only good feelings you ever have and you become like an addicted beast on the desperate search for ever weaker people to win off, then one day, 10 years too late, you will realise there is no coming back from it.
Dudes and gentlemen I give you, the flawed result of the human species.
I think Darwin’s theory still applies . It’s not survival of the fittest but survival of the most willing to adapt . I think it’s in the idea of what humans should adapt to that has been misconstrued. Before it was who could was physically and mentally able to be able to provide secure sustained resources for bearing the next generation. Now with things like trust funds and welfare there is no need to have a person who provides that .you see people going for instant gratification or the “YOLO” effect . You combine that with the generally degeneracy of culture worldwide and the guy who can bang more rails of a strippers ass using daddy’s money has more likely hood of getting laid than the guy who works the 9-5 , can hold an intelligent conversation and so on.
Just make sure you dont get those idiots pregnant, and nature is doing its thing.
One dumb thing is that they are always uber conservative about things. So they find an arrow and date it to 50k years, so that becomes the new time line. Well what are the odds they will find the very first arrow, or even one of the first 1000? In statistics you can guess at the edges when you are looking at a normal distribution. For me the probable age of these things is just as important as the proven age.
The discussion of human evolution is highly political with liberals blindly preferring a pure out of Africa theory based on chance finds in Africa that happened as recently as possible, say 50,000 years ago, and that claims that the process of evolution is slow and minimal.
As Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance, Genes Race and Human History” points out the process of human evolution is in fact very rapid and occurs within city/civilizational contexts particularly rapidly as well.
Lots of evidence now points out that the migration out of Africa happened not 30 to 50 thousand years ago but more like 130,000 even 180,000 years ago. Mungo Man, a completely modern skeleton from 60,000 years ago found in Australia has no African DNA and of course multi-origin theory is bolstered by the reality of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some non Africa races. One German researcher that was part of Svante Paabo’s team let slip that some middle eastern populations have Neanderthal DNA as high as 20%.
Much of the DNA evidence for an all of Africa starts with an a priori out of Africa assumption and works its way back.
I think if it is that that rapid, it is very possible that we are a blend of many rapid results evolving similarly but separately.
I am glad Australia again has the genetic differences to prove this and their dna appears in Tierra del Fuego supporting the idea that Olmecs and Aboriginals are related and part of an evolutionary branch as old and great as the Neanderthals.
What Ive always wondered was that the dates dont match the simple explainations I came up with, after looking at the maps and timelines of the continental breakup, it just doesnt add up. Iff we all came from Africa first, Africa didnt exist as a separate continent at the time, and it must have been much longer ago than the liberals state.
The Real Planet of the Apes: A New Story of Human Origins
by David R. Begun (who is palaeontologist) recently published a book arguing and providing evidence that apes likely descended from the trees and started walking upright in Europe rather than Africa.
“This provocative, engaging, and beautifully written book is a must-read for anyone interested in how and why apes–including humans–got to be the way they are. Begun not only summarizes with clarity the complex evolutionary history of apes, but also challenges us to think differently about ape and human origins.”–Daniel E. Lieberman, author of The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease and The Evolution of the Human Head
“In The Real Planet of the Apes, David Begun persuasively and entertainingly argues that we will never understand who we are without knowing the history of the larger ape group from which we evolved. His highly personal survey brilliantly complements more conventional accounts of human origins.”–Ian Tattersall, author of The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack: And Other Cautionary Tales from Human Evolution
“This is a masterful book by a leading scholar that provides an authoritative and engaging introduction to the evolution of apes–including humans. The Real Planet of the Apes is punctuated with wonderful bits of paleontological history and anecdotes about Begun’s own experiences in the field. No other book covers the topic in such a coherent and comprehensive way.”–John G. Fleagle, author of Primate Adaptation and Evolution
“This book tackles what is perhaps the most timely question in paleoanthropology, and also one of the thorniest–our ape origins and what they tell us about ourselves. There is no more knowledgeable, careful, or thorough a scholar of ape evolution than David Begun. This is a story that needs to be told.”–Carol V. Ward, University of Missouri
Thankyou very much, that looks like a really good book.
De-evolution of Hollywood
Remains of human ancestors that have been found are ≈ 2 million years old. Many scientists have stated the jump from homoerectus to homosapiens without some kind of intervention is impossible. There are remains of ancient civilisations on Mars (e.g. Cydonia). The significance of all this is that conventional science (as well as archaeology and history, etc.) is not completely factual. Whatever you learn in the educational system of today cannot be trusted. Education itself is controlled bu the government. You won’t be learning anything in school that the government does not want you to know about. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Well you get to a point where its impossible to tell how hairy or human the apes looked. Generally I agree, currently there is a whole 1 million year period where many varied skulls can be found that throw the old plan off kilter and its ignorant for schools to not teach the more interesting parts.
Early Ostro-blankithus apparently appeared in Indonesia first. (Now there might be some accidental own-race blindness here but … ) In Africa and Asia it is clear to my eyes that the people resemble well their local great apes
( happy to hear suggestions for whitey, if the bald hairy red faced monkeys lived in England it would be a hat-trick).
So it means that the major ‘human’ races evolved seprately from an already evolved local ape, or there was a real long time of mixing to and fro before the species finally separated. Im guessing this 2 million years ago is the time of greatesd variation in offspring due to some increased brain power, migration and mass gene mixing.
I can see why schools might want to avoid the blurred boundary of pre-humans shagging evolved-apes. That would kick off so many daft ideas and upset the elitists no end.
Nice article:
1. Neanderthals are very underestimated. people sometimes confuse survival of the fittest to survival of the most intelligent. It is quite possible that Neanderthals were more intelligent than homo sapiens and even less violent towards each other, but lived in smaller groups and less density per square mile. When the first humans came in groups and tribes of up to 150 (which comes up again and again as the ideal group size) they could easily have destroyed the Neanderthals who lived in smaller family sized groups.
I also think that it’s very possible that the isolated Neanderthals that lived in small family groups were killed off by diseases that festered in the larger human populations that lived in larger groups. Just as happened in America when the Europeans arrived.
2. It is now a well known fact that Humans in all the world – except Black Africans – have 2.5-4.5% of Neanderthal Genes. Considering that every group except African Blacks then went on to create and build far greater civilisations, cities and social structures, develop the written word and advance scientifically while African Blacks stood still without the written word, the wheel or comparable civilisations is very telling.
3. As evolution (both genetic and social) moves quickest and progresses when there are challenges and obstacles to be overcome (colder climates, variable weather patterns, defined seasons where you need to plan ahead and co-operate to survive) where as in the warm African climate the fruit was falling from the trees is it a surprise that those that left tropical Africa naturally favoured the more intelligent and co-operative? And therefore these traits spread throughout the population.
4. The fastest breeders who have children that survive to have more children have the genes that spread the furthest. The Africans have always had many children, but their population was kept in check by lack of medicines and sanitary conditions. The same was the case for Asia and Europe and other peoples. The big breakthrough came through when all those outside Africa learned to farm and produce more food that could feed larger populations. The next big step was the advance of medicines and more sanitary conditions. This step was made (mainly) in Europe and the population boomed. The population growth favoured and rewarded in this case the intelligence and ingenuity to make these advances. Unfortunately these advances were given to the rest of the world for free, and now the greatest population growth is in those countries where people are the least developed and intelligent. In effect, reverse evolution – survival and population growth of the least able and least intelligent.
5. Never under estimate the role of demographics in the world of History. It can explain the expansion of the Roman Empire, the Viking raids, India’s and China’s powerful periods and the expansion of Europe into the New World and beyond. Just as the Neanderthals were destroyed by more numerous but less intelligent beings, Europe can be too.
6. Never estimate how the number of people living in each square mile has an adverse impact on standards of living. The hunter gathers could have a better life than early farmers because there were less people living off each square mile. But once the number of people increases and they are forced into/because of farming the quality of the food decreases, but it can keep more people alive. Because of this they will be able to raise larger armies and then be able to defeat any hunter gathers around them. And so the cycle goes.
This continues today. People seem to think higher GDP means higher quality of life. But how is it that London is full of houses that used to be purchased by one earner in the family, but now the same house is split into 6 flats and requires two salaries per flat to purchase. Surely you have a higher quality of life when you are not squeezed into an expensive but tiny converted apartment.
You only need to look at Japan, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But compare the standard of living to a comparably wealthy country with more space (Australia, Canada) and the quality of living is far better.
7. Bipedal disadvantages. I think the answer to this is you need to adjust your thinking to niche advantages of evolution slowly favouring the adaption to 2 legs instead of 4. As long as there is some niche environment where this can deliver advantages it could happen. Maybe the edges of forests, where the ability to run on all fours is not as important as the plains and savannah, and the ability to use all four limbs like apes is not such an advantage as the deep forest. Maybe another niche environment – the edges of mountain ranges or cliffs near rivers and seas. But over millions of years this can develop a species that then has opportunities opened up to it that snowball all the way to where we are now. Also remember that our ancestors on two legs may have been using stones, rocks and wooden sticks as tools far before they manufactured anything that we could identify today. This could be a great unseen advantage that was there much earlier than we think.
8. Final thought. For me a big unspoken question. They say that modern homo sapiens appear is the fossil records around 200,000 years ago.
I read quotes such as…. “These descendants of African H. erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis.”
So if modern day homo sapiens can appear 200,000 years ago and 500,000 years is enough time for Homo Erectus to deveop into three seperate species.
Why is 120,000 years from when Black Africans and All other humans on the planet – not enough time for any variations, genetic changes to take place??? None at all???
Add together that everyone who left Africa also have 2.5-4.5% Neanderthal genes and I am convinced there must be differences between Black Africans and all others. And when you look at the historical lists of greatest civilisations, inventions, advances in science and writing, and the lack of all of these in Africa – it backs this up completely.
I am alone in this?
Not sure which bit you feel alone in. As a neanderthal I like what you say, but I am very concerned that the trending attitude is to use this information to provide a new form of racism. In which case, Im anti stupid-white-people, if they turn out to be a different race to me then I am a racist.
But for Africa, there are many repeated periods of migration, and inter-mixing that mean we are all now sharing the dna of long dead species that only the very southernmost africans do not have. But we are all mostly homo sapiens unless you were born in a rainforest.
If white people are claiming superior intellingence by default without getting their DNA tested, they dont have much intelligence. These are the dumb rapidly reproducing idiots that are currently infesting the planet.
What if you were born in a rainforest?
Then you are old stock and deserve respect are are allowed to be racist towards any of the lesser child breeds of human who attempt to fuck up your quiet home.
Or something similar, whatever.
Why do you keep picking on Black Africans? Makes you appear insecure.
It’s an observation. A scientific observation. Everything i say is true. And as their population booms they will no doubt abandon their own mess and swarm in their endless hordes into Europe. And make Europe just as bad as where they come from.
Well the way to end all that is to stop giving any “freebies” (i.e. other peoples money). You encourage the productive to leave and the unproductive to come to your country. Ending the welfare state will solve a lot of problems.
I think this is 100% true. I think Tax Credits encourages people to come and do low paid work and gives incentives to employers to pay less. Also all the benefits available don’t help.
Yes you are alone, but not for longer.
We’re living in times when the Truth is said, nobody wants to care.
Great comment.
“All humans, all equal genetically” said the lewontin liar
The har1a (intelligence core) gene has only two changes from chicken to monkey, but 18 from munkeys to humans. That means there are some humans closer to the chickenz!!!! In a cerebrumzzz proteinz!! Lolzloolzllzllzloz lamoOLmaolamaalamoanaloza
Please tell me what that shows? I think there are differences but I’d be extremely surprised if Africans had more in common with Bonobos while Europeans had no overlap..
Article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120628#f4
Basically they are comparing the autosomal region of the X chromosome with the chimpanzee.
Although is a very small part of the genome, only one chromosome and doesn’t include the pseudoautosomal region. This is 3/4 of a chromosome. Although more than enough to make somebody absolutely stupid.
#6 I tried to bring up similar points in the article about “depopulation”. The higher the population, the lower the quality of life, and the more scarce are the limited resources on the planet. Higher population levels result in lower food and water quality, higher prices, and more disease, pollution, congestion, etc.
I think this is true. Ask the North American Indians if their quality of life has improved or declined since the massive influx of immigrants took place over the last few hundred years.
Yeah, now they have to put up with all the plumbing, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, rule of law, irrigation, agriculture, cessation of endless, internecine tribal warfare, centralized heating and cooling, rapid transit systems, computers, telephones, and on and on…
I hate it when magic visitors bring me wonders beyond my wildest dreams.
‘What Did The Romans Do For Us’ The Life Of Brian
Exactly.
No happy accidents.
If somebody wants to delete this post for being off topic fine. But there is something I am interested in concerning the measuring of web traffic on Alexa.
I have noticed that even as lots of right wing websites like this one become more well known, the Alexa ranking does not improve but gets worse. I have heard that they have started manipulating results in favor if the left. And that they also rig it now in favor of people who give them money.
I have noticed Roosh, Inforwars, AVFM, Breitbart, etc have experienced worsening ratings of late even as every inidcaTION seems to be more popularity of these sites.
I think Judgy Bitch said something to that effect. But that she just did not worry about it any more.
THere have been tons of cool articles on this website and you can tell it is popular as the time between comments is very short. And most people rread without commenting, I am sure.
I found it very suspicious a year or so ago when so many cultural libertarian sites all seemed to start getting lousy rankings at the same time.
@Roosh: “It’s also becoming likely that Neanderthals were smarter than humans at that time.” – Neanderthals were humans. They were homo sapiens.
@Roosh: “My own guess is that they (the Neanderthals) were slaughtered by modern humans. The reason we find their remains in caves is because that was the only place they could hold defensive positions.”
I think you’re right. Furthermore some of those caves are more similar to modern mass graves than prehistoric last strongholds. Which means – since the Neanderthals were humans – that their extermination was the first genocide by modern humans. But not the last.
“We’re starting to piece together the story of the Neanderthals, who
were already in Europe when modern humans made it out of Africa. There
was inter-breeding between them and humans (many non-Africans have
Neanderthal genes) until they died out from supposed lack of food or
other environmental reasons. My own guess is that they were slaughtered
by modern humans. The reason we find their remains in caves is because
that was the only place they could hold defensive positions.
“It’s also becoming likely that Neanderthals were smarter than humans at that time.”
“Neanderthals” were Pre-Flood humanity (and a few transitional generations afterwards), they had the prominent foreheads because the bone of the brow never stops growing, and humanity used to live as many centuries as we do decades now.
How did Neanderthals survive the flood?
So at what age did the women who lived for centuries enter menopause?
“How did Neanderthals survive the flood?”
Everyone on the Ark was a “Neanderthal.” The changed environment of the Earth shrunk the generations afterwards. The same thing occurred to the giant beavers, sloths, etc.
@Roosh: “Modern humans were more numerous (higher fertility) and better at fighting (physically stronger or faster). To Neanderthals, humans must have been a dreaded zombie army that just kept coming from Africa.”
In his novel “The Inheritors” William Golding implies that the cutting edge of the dreaded zombie army – i.e. modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens – was that our language (covert communication) was a little more sophisticated.
OT, but it amuses me that the people who worship Charles Darwin and use the theory of evolution to beat up on today’s traditional Christians have to conveniently overlook Darwin’s own example.
I’ve read a few biographies of Darwin, and the biographers haven’t dug up anything to indicate that he had any premarital sexual experience, even though as a passenger on the Beagle in his 20’s he visited ports well away from England which must have had prostitutes to service the sailors. He married his cousin Emma Wedgwood around the time they both turned 30, so just imagine two adult virgins getting married and having sex for the first time in their lives at that age. Despite their late start, Darwin made Emma pregnant ten times, and seven of their children survived to adulthood, a pretty successful record by Victorian standards. (Darwin had the goods when it came to demonstrating his virility.) It also helped that the Darwins and the Wedgwoods held landed wealth, so Charles and Emma could support a large family.
Yet today if a 30 year old male virgin marries his cousin and has a large family with her, like those Christians in the Quiverfull movement, secular Darwin fans would mock him as a hick and a loser.
Living in cities is definitely a massive impacting factor having negative consequences for human beings. We are not designed to function with so many different interractive entitites in short spaces of time. Hence the suicide rates in Tokyo where they ae crammed in like sardines
I would have more respect for Daniel Lieberman than this. And actually I am not sure what your argument is here. One can only hypothesize on the basis of the data one has. Here we have discrete data points joined by a trend line. Unless you can go back in time and observe everything as it happens you have no choice.
I also would not characterize the formation of bipedal primates as a “jump”. This method of locomotion would have developed over millennia, not in one day. As such, the primate developing this method would have had plenty of time to develop strategies to deal with predators.
So, you take it on yourself to educate others about evolution, which you characterize as having humans “evolved from apes”. No, Roosh, evolution claims that humans and apes evolved from a single common ancestor. Apes would be our brothers/cousins on the primate family tree, not our fathers. Why would you pontificate at such length about something you know so little about? Maybe you’re just not very smart.
I hope you’ll read this comment Roosh. I’ve already commented two of your evolution-related articles (“evolution doesn’t apply to modern humans” and “are we alive only to survive and reproduce”).
I don’t want to criticize your article as harshly as I am inclined to, because I honestly think it’s already a good thing that you’re actually reading books related to evolution: after all , that’s the healthy way of making one’s mind. I’m bothering to comment on your articles because even though I only agree with part, not all, of your ideology, I find some aspects of your intellectual odyssey very interesting.
That being said, your should realize that there is incoherence in your stance vis-à-vis human evolution.
Sticking points of the same amplitude of the rise of bipedalism exist all over the animal kingdom, for countless species. You don’t seem to have an objection to the evolutionary “narrative” of ants, frogs or birds, but you’re skeptical about human evolution by natural selection ? It is too convenient to be coincidental that the only “leap” that you found dubious is the one that concerns us humans. Therefore, your skepicism is at least as emotion-based as it is reason-based, not a good thing. Let me aggravate the case: you didn’t express any skepticism about the evolution of the bipedalism of kangaroos !
The image of the new morphological trait that arises “because it was more advantageous than the previous one” is simplistic. After all, both humans and non-bipedal primates still exist. The rise of bipedalism is not so much about bipedalism being “better” in absolute terms, as it is about bipedalism having been more advantageous at some point, in some place, where special conditions would have rendered the arboreal lifestyle difficult or impossible. Speciation is a relatively quick event (50000-100000 years, sometimes less) that takes place in very special circumstances (pun unintended), after which the new design may very well not be “better” than the original but the two diverged designs are now two different ways of coping with a different environment.
Bear in mind that quadrupedal animals are not physically incapable of bipedalism (think of bears, rabbits, and of course, chimps and bonobos, who actually can walk upright, just not well). Even higher socialization alone, because it forms noisy coalitions that a predator would hesitate to attack, is an example of an adaptation that can cancel out the early disadvantages of bipedalism. The transition from quadruped to bipedal locomotion is not as dramatic a leap as you seem to envision. Of course, the structural changes necessary to walk WELL are considerable, and not just in the skeleton but also in the brain, but there is nothing impossible about a slow accumulation of bodily features that makes an already feasible bipedal locomtion in a chimpanzee-like creature more robust and tolerable (and consider the fact that speciation is actually RARE in relative terms: so it is only logical that it happens in “dubious” conditions, againts the odds, because for every successful transition there are countless others that fail and lead to extinction). The book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne (who is more calm and convincing than Dawkins, if you dislike the latter’s overall tone in his later books). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Dennett is a much more difficult read but still very relevant, too.
You’re also overlooking the fact that evolutionary science is not standing only on the fossils. Many biologists point out that even if we didn’t have any fossils at all, we would still have extremely solid grounds for believing in evolution: the evidence of our past is literally all over the place, in our bodies, in our DNA.
You’re grossly underestimating the downright scary amount of evidence if you tend to think there is “as much faith required to believe in evolution as to believe in the biblical account of human history”. Mitochondria, the phenomenon of shivering, the appendix, widespread lower back pain due to imperfect adaptation to bipedalism in humans, and countless other signs only and only make any sense whatsoever solely in light of evolution. With creationism you just look at all these “oddities” and say that the lord did a whole bunch of weird choices when he designed Adam and Eve. You’re smarter than this Roosh.
Then again, we come back to your existential questionings. Regardless of whether dismissing the biblical account would be good or bad for one’s quest for meaning, I hope you do realize that how convenient a hypothesis is does not change anything about whether it is true or false – and I suspect that overlooking this fallacy has been stronly affecting your stance on human evolution.
I hope you’ll read this comment Roosh. I’ve already commented on two of
your evolution-related articles (“evolution doesn’t apply to modern
humans” and “are we alive only to survive and reproduce”).
I don’t want to criticize your article as harshly as I am inclined to, because I
honestly think it’s already a good thing that you’re actually reading
books related to evolution: after all , that’s the healthy way of making
one’s mind. I’m bothering to comment on your articles because even
though I only agree with part, not all, of your ideology, I find some
aspects of your intellectual odyssey very interesting.
That being said, your should realize that there is incoherence in your stance vis-à-vis human evolution. Sticking points of the same amplitude of the rise of bipedalism exist all over the animal kingdom, for countless species. You don’t seem to have an objection to the evolutionary “narrative” of ants, frogs or birds, but you’re skeptical about human evolution by natural selection ? It is too convenient to be coincidental that the only “leap” that you found dubious is the one that concerns us humans. Therefore, your skepicism is at least as emotion-based as it is reason-based, not a good thing. Let me aggravate the case: you didn’t express any skepticism about the evolution of the bipedalism of kangaroos !
The image of the new morphological trait that arises “because it was more advantageous than the previous one” is simplistic. After all, both humans and non-bipedal primates still exist. The rise of bipedalism is not so much about
bipedalism being “better” in absolute terms, as it is about bipedalism having been more advantageous at some point, in some place, where special conditions would have rendered the arboreal lifestyle difficult or impossible. Speciation is a relatively quick event (50000-100000 years, sometimes less) that takes place in very special circumstances (pun unintended), after which the new design may very well not be “better” than the original but the two diverged designs are now two different ways of coping with a different environment.
Bear in mind that quadrupedal animals are not physically incapable of bipedalism (think of bears, rabbits, and of course, chimps and bonobos, who
actually can walk upright, just not well). Even higher socialization alone, because it forms noisy coalitions that a predator would hesitate to attack, is an example of an adaptation that can cancel out the early disadvantages of bipedalism. The transition from quadruped to bipedal locomotion is not as dramatic a leap as you seem to envision. Of course,the structural changes necessary to walk WELL are considerable, and not just in the skeleton but also in the brain, but there is nothing impossible about a slow accumulation of bodily features that makes an
already feasible bipedal locomtion in a chimpanzee-like creature more robust and tolerable (and consider the fact that speciation is actually RARE in relative terms: so it is only logical that it happens in “dubious” conditions, againts the odds, because for every successful transition there are countless others that fail and lead to extinction). The book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne (who is more calm and convincing than Dawkins, if you dislike the latter’s overall tone in his later books). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Dennett is a much more
difficult read but still very relevant, too.
You’re also overlooking the fact that evolutionary science is not standing only on the fossils. Many biologists point out that even if we didn’t have any fossils at
all, we would still have extremely solid grounds for believing in evolution: the evidence of our past is literally all over the place, in our bodies, in our DNA.
You’re grossly underestimating the downright scary amount of evidence if you tend to think there is “as much faith required to believe in evolution as to believe in the biblical account of human history”. Mitochondria, the phenomenon of shivering, the appendix, widespread lower back pain due to imperfect adaptation to bipedalism in humans, and countless other signs only and only make any
sense whatsoever solely in light of evolution. With creationism you just look at all these “oddities” and say that the lord did a whole bunch of weird choices when he designed Adam and Eve. You’re smarter than this Roosh.
Then again, we come back to your existential questionings. Regardless of whether dismissing the biblical account would be good or bad for one’s quest for meaning, I hope you do realize that how convenient a hypothesis is does not change anything about whether it is true or false – and I suspect that overlooking this fallacy has been stronly affecting your stance on human evolution.
Walking on two legs means you have two hands free to carry whatever you have hunted or gathered back to a base. Strict quadrupeds generally only consume food in situ, or else must drag it with their teeth back to their den.
.
There may be some relationship between bipedalism and human brain/intelligence/sapient development. This is speculation by a non-expert but the bigger our brains got, the more vulnerable the baby and mother were following birth, and for longer. It made more sense for them to stay in one place and let their mate or the rest of the tribe bring the food to them.
My favorite scientific guess as to how apes went bipedal, is the water ape. Some dumb ape figured out how to use clumsy tools to get rich foods (shellfish?) from shallow water, and the evolutionary race was on. Fat is favored over fur for temp regulation in water, so slight changes there were started. Those with slightly better hind legs could harvest food from further in while keeping the head above water.
“I can’t decide if it takes more faith to believe in evolutionary theories of early man or believing in the story out of Genesis with Adam and Eve.”
Much of what is passed off as science today is essentially a religion. Widely accepted theories are treated as fact, and questioning those theories leads to ridicule. The scientific method has been discarded and replaced by politically or monetarily driven motive. Ultimately, what we’re seeing is the replacement of God with a new article of faith that is purely humanistic.
Evolution and human history is yet waiting to be discovered in detail. My guess is that we will be able to map human and animal development via advanced genetic mapping. So far we still know very little and have decoded mostly a few markers and that’s it.
In addition – there are old accounts from the Greeks that tell of the Egyptians making fun of the Greek historians who were not aware how old humanity really was. If modern humans have existed 200.000 years ago, then we could literally have had advanced civilizations existing 100.000 years ago and 30.000. All might have even existed on highly favorable islands like Atlantis or Lemuria. Massive cataclysms might have easily wiped them out.
One might also add that in our climate of science – even if society finds proof of that, then they will usually cover it up, since dogma always wants to protect current viewpoints, jobs etc. Massive changes of current theories are simply suppressed for a long time. For example in geology there is the incredible bias against catastrophism which stated that most mountains, continents and even the Grand Canyon were created through short massive tectonic shifts and floods and not via eons of slow rises. Nevermind that there exists massive amount of proof for catastrophism, it just won’t be taught due to a hostile scientific climate.
“They find one partial skeleton for every 100,000 or even 1 million years
of human existence, and then re-jigger their entire theory around that
skeleton. It’s intellectually dishonest, especially when you consider
that a lot can happen in 100,000 years.”
no respectable biologists in evolutionary science, especially when talking about how humans historically evolved, and the selection that droves humans to stand up, proclaim absolute truths. science provides the BEST explanation contingent on the current evidence. as more evidence is uncovered, if it doesn’t fit the story, the story HAS to change – that’s how science works. all the evidence MUST fit the explanation. and as more evidence comes about, the story becomes more and more accurate.
“According to current theory, not only did the first bidpedal humans
survive these disadvantages, but they managed to successfully evolve to
the result you are now living.”
that’s not according to current theory, that’s not even a theory, that’s according to observation and fact. we know for a fact humans evolved from ancestral apes, we know for a fact human ancestors survived the bipedal disadvantages, and we know for a fact they managed to successfully evolve to the result that i am living. the “current theory” is an attempt at explaining HOW that happened – that’s what a “theory” is, and that explanation is contingent on the best evidence that we have.
so let’s have a 5th grade science lesson:
“humans evolved from ancestral apes” – that’s a fact, not a theory, because it doesn’t explain HOW that happened.
“humans evolved from ancestral apes by googling how to build tools and technology” – that’s a theory, because it attempts to explain the facts
“My own guess is that they were slaughtered by modern humans. The reason we find their remains in caves is because that was the only place they could hold defensive positions.”
It’s unlickely that they were directly slaughtered. They were highly intelligent, supreriorly stronger and great strategical hunters.
And they lived on the same area than the ‘new comer’ for thousands of years.
It’s rather they loose the competion for the long term ressources, have fewer and fewer children, less and less genetic diversity, and less and less territory to hunt.
Diseases contracted from Sapiens should have paly a role, too.
It’s a long continuous pressure rather than a direct hit.