Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#255,292
White people are already a minority when it comes to world population.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,293
If we become a minority, wouldn't that mean that our genes were inferior and couldn't survive natural selection?
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,294
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Becoming a minority != becoming extinct.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,295
@255,292 (Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
What about the United States and Europe?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,296
@255,293 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
It just means niggers breed more.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,297
No, I doubt it very much. @255,292 (Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
He's probably referring to the US or the Western world. @255,293 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Genes only become inferior when they're less well-adapted to our environment.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,298
@previous (E)
Are gay genes inferior? What about transgender genes?
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,299
@255,295 (A)
What about the US? The Hispanics will stay to the South-West, the blacks will stay to the South-East and the inner cities and Whites will stay in the Mid-West and Northern East Coast. @previous (A)
You're a gay gene.
EDIT: What the hell do you mean by a transgender gene?
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,300
@255,298 (A)
The fundamental sexual instinct to reproduce with the opposite sex is absent, so yes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,302
@previous (E)
But nowadays one doesn't need to reproduce to be useful to society.
What about scientists and doctors who don't have kids?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,304
@previous (A) > But nowadays one doesn't need to reproduce to be useful to society.
Of course, but that kind of successful life is different from evolutionary "success", i.e. how successful one is at reproducing and passing on genes (which is the only "goal" of evolution, if it can be called a goal). > What about scientists and doctors who don't have kids?
In terms of evolution? Failures.
jump joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#255,311
> If we become a minority, wouldn't that mean that our genes were inferior and couldn't survive natural selection?
Not necessarily. Our population is strong. It's better for everyone if humans reproduced less. Hispanics and Africans still breed like we have high infant mortality rates.
We could over-breed into extinction. I feel we are. Soon, resources won't be enough. The stupid overbred masses will riot for food and necessities. Eventually those keeping society together will be killed or forced underground.
The survivors will be too stupid to fend for themselves. They will die out.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,341
@255,304 (E)
Evolution doesn't have any goals. It's not a deity. Is it?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,343
@previous (A)
You're right, but natural selection favours traits which increase the chances of an organism surviving long enough to reproduce - which about as close as evolution gets to having a "goal".
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,346
@previous (E)
but that's not evolution having a goal, that's you personifying a force of nature.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,349
@previous (G)
I agree, I used goal for lack of a better word.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dreamworks !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,435
op is a dm
RaiRai joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,439
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,444
@255,293 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Not if we use our superior inventiveness and intelligence to "address" the problem. It requires revocation of certain rights and possibly killing, so those of us who are also carrying genes for compassion then we're bound to lose.
@255,298 (A)
Gay genes are necessarily superior with regard to sexual selection, as they cannot proliferate unless they are being begged for.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,445
@255,343 (E)
Evolution is the process of fucking shit up. There is no goal and you sound stupid for even suggesting such.
Evolutionary adaptation and genetic mutation regularly result in attributes which are desirable one moment and undesirable the next. To assume a snapshot resulting from the past is in any way desirable or superior is to live in the past. It shows you do not understand what emergence really is. For evolution to be a fact, adaptation must continue into the future. There is no perfection.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,447
@previous (J)
You've misunderstood everything I said, especially my use of the word goal. Please reread this thread. Thanks. @255,444 (J) > Gay genes are necessarily superior with regard to sexual selection, as they cannot proliferate unless they are being begged for.
Hi to4str!
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,450
On a global scale, we always have been.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,451
@255,447 (E)
Protip: if you have to ask people to reread what you've typed, you're doing it wrong. I'm just giving you some advice for the future, take it or leave it: don't ever speak of evolution as if it's some kind of god-force that can do no wrong. Evolution is just shit in the toilet bowl of chaos. It doesn't make any one of us special anymore than an imaginary sky dude does.
You should realize the comment about gay genes being "superior" was a joke. Superiority is only measurable in hindsight. Though if gay genes actually do exist, sexual selection seems the most likely mechanism for their proliferation.
floorboard !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,464
In the future everyone will be gay and we'll only breed by test tube.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,497
@previous (floorboard !nIGga.SL0w)
...as required by global law.
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,643
Lol no you're wrong.
Gay men can and still reproduce, just not with other men.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,658
Is Evolution really like a God?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#255,836
@255,300 (E)
But that's wrong. Because if evolution is fact and gay genes turn out to be fact, then at some point in our cultural evolution, homosexuality necessarily provided a set of survival or reproductive advantages that outweighed its inherent survival and reproductive disadvantages. It's very existence strongly suggests this to be the case.