Evolution of mankind = Studs not Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

There was an article in newspaper about the evolution of mankind. The general gist of it was that mankind is going to be more like aspies. Even though I am sure that there are going to be more percentage of aspies in future, have to strongly disagree with that article.

Natures rules have always been survival of the fittest. Back in caveman time only strong family units survive. If a man back in caveman time was to have children with many woman the majority of those children would not be able to survive because a single female parent cannot be the hunter and the gatherer . In today modern western world all the children would survive; and you bet they would go around impregnating woman and leaving them to find another woman.

The stud behaviour of men will multiply because there is no environmental limitation on stopping them. The daughters of studs would also probably be happy to get themselves pregnant with stud men.

Good point.

Unless, of course, the aspie is a "stud."

Or a whore...but...usually its the impoverished underclass that supplies whores. you would think that would balance out the good genes passed on by the studs. on the other hand, with the advent of birth control and abortion, this may not be the case, and indeed we will begin to see the good genes plume outward through more of the population.

Last edited by hpunch on 08 Dec 2006, 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chav. I don't see your reasoning on that.

need I remind you that there are plenty of nerdish types out there who married good looking girls and had great marriages?

so before you go off on something like this thing you thought off......randomly apparently, I'd like to see research, and good ideas. because if you come across as saying something like this, I'll have to wonder where you came up with this.

so to put it bluntly, I'd like to know what newspaper article, and if it has any links. If I can have a friend verify it, I'll believe you, otherwise, not.

I'm sure in evolution, this isnt unique. Think of the first fish to walk onto shore - He would have been alone - all others before him swam - he would have been quite alone yet animals still walk on land because of this 'land fish'

Aspies can show up in normal families - If not, then aspies would have been wiped out ages ago - I dont think this is anything new and I think that the article was accurate, myself, or 'theoritically accurate' I should say

well, we're supposed to be well over our planet's carrying capacity within the next 60 years or so... so, i'm sure we'll be dealing with a multitude of stuff... and evolution will make some quick harsh decisions for us.

I think the autistic genotype has survived evolution as it has is because it is a tradeoff. It has both negative and positive aspects to it leaving it neutral in natural selections process. If it was more beneficial it would have spread to everyone while if it was mostly negative it would have been selected against and died out.

The best way to describe it I think is to call it a vestigial trait that never achieved predominance.

hypothesis

I think of 'Vulcan' when I tihnk of the future. I think of 'aliens' as being 'peaceful,' if they exist. My reasoning being, the logical course of mental evolution would result in this desire. The loss of 'feeling' and the gaining of 'understanding' is had - many problems derived from current mental psychology - misunderstanding, mental 'force,' etc. In order to gain peace, we must rid of 'ways of thinking.'

One example is stating that 'war must exist.' Well, if you have that mindset then yes, war must exist and will be sought after, but for others who beg to differ, they will seek alternative methods in regards to avoiding war.

Any change society will hope to see will have to start at the individual mental level - this is my firm belief (of course, unproven). There was probably a time where humanoids hitting other humanoids was normal - we dont think that anymore

Older principles of evolution no longer apply to humans. Now no significant number of gene contenders get killed, and in the long run, nearly everyone finds a mating partner. That's not to say natural selection is dead, but instead, natural selection is a matter of who gets with who.

Rather than saying the human race will generally be more <blah>, you should be looking at how different gene archetypes would emerge, and what the relative ubiquity of each archetype is. For instance, if wealth and intelligence are correlated, and hot women are attracted to both, would intelligence and beauty become correlated?

LOGICAL REASONING

Ok lets top comparing an stud with an aspie. Let compare a regular respectable gent with a sleep with any woman stud.

A friend of mine is a stud has had a total of 9 children. A respectable gent might generally have 1-3 children. Of the respectable gents children will also be inclined to be respectable having 3-1 children. However the studs children will generally behave the same has their father also have 9 children

9 * 9 = 81 the stud grand parent to 81 children
3 * 3 = 9 the gent will be a parent to 9

Of course his is an exaggeration but you get the idea. In nature success is dictated not by wealth but by ability to reproduce and those offspring surviving to reproduce themselves.


So do you understand that in future the higher percentage of humans are going to be studs. Unless there are natural forces to prevent the studs offspring from growing up to adulthood and reproducing themselves.

what if the aspie is 9 times as fertile as the stud?

im not sure ur working with all the data..

But the aspie isn't.

But how do we know this? How can we provide a universal negative?

From another thread (I think its in the RDF) we know that aspies tend to be...shall we say 'late bloomers'.

So far, we've only thought about the actual amount of children produced.

But seeing as people's immune systems (according to another pool, at the time I looked at it.), seem to be good compared to your average NT population, is it possible that aspies could be more potentially fertile, and actually more fertile as far as actual biology goes but its just that the lacking of social skills means they're less likely to have a relationship with an NT (because, let's face it, most people are Neurotypicial) which in turn means that they're less likely to have children?

Chav.

this is merely pure speculation, and I certainly don't hold to this.

I find women are attracted to me because I'm nice, not because of some odd end mathematical equasion.

much as I think that's a good idea, I can't buy it. sorry bro, but unless you come up with more concrete evidence, I'll stick to my views on how to get women, which is to be yourself.

@Gamester: He's not saying anything about how to get a girl, or why attraction happens. He's saying that eventually, humanity will evolve in such a way so there's fewer "respectable gents" and more "dued i was u no f*in my girlfrind an i drank sum bear at te same time!!11" people.

It's with a simple reason. The first group (gents as someone put it) are more likely to have a few, limited number of kids, like 1 to 3. And most likely those kids will become like their parents, and follow a similar pattern - each have 1 to 3 kids.

But the second group - is more likely to have a lot of kids, not really caring. Like 9 as another said. And chances are that each of those 9 kids will become like the parents and each have another 9 kids.

As you can see, within a few generations there are an extremely more amount of people in the second group.

Chav, that logical reasoning doesnt take into account so many variables. It basically works with 'stud + stud = stud' but parents can have aspie children and the amount of aspie children is on the rise - if it were the other way around, then aspie children would be on the decline.