RenOS
Dadder than dad
No bio...
User ID: 2051
RenOS
Dadder than dad
5mo ago
I've never been a particular fan of the term "race realist" nor the people who apply this label to themselves, but this is pretty weak. There are always infinite possible groupings depending on how fine-grained you want to be, but both groupings by genetics as well as biological attributes generally replicate black/asian/white as the most basic categories just fine.
Not necessarily. As a general rule, our biology is the way it is for a reason, and the great majority of large variations from the mean in biological traits is dysfunctional. As such, a greater variability on basic biological traits can easily lead to a lower average life expectancy. In terms of statistics, you should be careful when trying to estimate the effects of differences in upstream variables on downstream measurements. It's not all nice and linear!
Edit: Though I also disagree with the parent post. Men generally live shorter, and even the extreme cases of old age is dominated by women. Live expectancy is generally not really strongly evolutionary selected, and even less in men than in women.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Do you never do things like bath with your children when they're young? Or do you always wear bathing suits even at home? I have to admit I find the attitude genuinely puzzling, I don't want to make fun of you, I just don't even get how you manage to avoid them seeing nudity until a certain age. Many children's books here include nude people. If anything, there is the problem that older kids are more likely to associate nudity with sex so you show less nudity around them, while with small children your main problem will be that they think pulling or pinching your penis is funny when they see your reaction.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1mo ago
Kind of, but women overall seem to fail more gently. For example, even if a women does not have a lot of raw talent to become an actually good artist, she will often be good enough at navigating social environments that she will find some kind of safety net, such as becoming an art teacher, working in some sort of subsidized gallery, or the archetypical husband paying the bills. A guy in the same situation is much more likely to be a complete trainwreck imo. Partially this is just a result of the expected higher male variability.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1mo ago
Admittedly I mostly play murderhobo games nowadays bc I consider many stories so bad that not having one is an improvement over the average in my book, but there is a large difference between catering to your audience and catering to something else. The first creates bad writing in a general sense, but as long as it's in a way your target audience wants you're fine. In the latter case - and catering to DEI is just a subtype here - you're just obliterating all goodwill for no goddamn reason. And DEI people have a particular knack for outright insulting the main userbase of beloved franchises to boot.
Though I guess we agree overall. I'm just pissed by my niche interest games always eventually getting captured by casualization in terms of game mechanics on one hand, and by wokification in terms of the story on the other, and it always seems to go this particular direction, never the other. I even agree on DE, while I think 'bordering on political propanganda' is an understatement, he tailor-made the entire setting to suit his political beliefs, but I did genuinely enjoy most of the story and he skillfully just barely dunks enough on marxists and unionists.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
2mo ago
I do think you underestimate the effect in your last paragraph. Both from my own impressions on dealmaking between employers and employees and basic investment vs return thinking, the employee has significant leverage in that if the company fails, he can just go to another with at most a small pay cut, while the business owner will lose everything he has build up so far. It seems to me that being rich in general gives you more leverage, but being more invested in the thing under discussion gives you less leverage. So everything else being equal, an independently rich employee has the most leverage, while a small-scale business owner with no other large investments has the least leverage.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
4mo ago
In principle I'm open to almost all kinds of taxation - I was in favor of georgism before it was cool, for example (though I'm tentatively against it now that it is cool, so I guess you may call me a tax code hipster?).
It just so happens that wealth is absolutely horrible to tax in practical terms. The state can only meaningfully tax anything for which it has easily accessible bookkeeping. We already expect companies to have accounting software & books anyway, which means income & sales are easy to tax. For wealth, only investment & bank accounts are easily accessible. So in practice we have two extreme outcomes of a wealth tax (and a spectrum of combinations inbetween):
a) only bank accounts and investments are taxed, maybe in addition to some reasonably easy to estimate forms of wealth such as land ownership. This will strongly incentivise, as you put it, lazy bum money, and other difficult to access forms of wealth.
b) Every individual will have to do extensive bookkeeping of all their belongings, and the state will regularly need to check homes (in fact, any place where valuable assets might be hidden) to make sure that these books are accurate. Aside from the extreme inefficiency of forcing people to keep books of their belongings, this is utterly impractical for the state as well. In practice there will probably be arbitrary limits on both individuals and goods - you only need to keep book about your belongings which are worth >X / only individuals who have a net-worth >Y need to keep books. But this will again strongly encourage people to move their wealth into assets that are below these lines / to get themselves below the line.
Either way, even if a wealth tax might be efficient in a world with a theoretic omniscient tax AI, I have yet to see an actual implementation that isn't horribly distortive AND impractical.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
7mo ago
Man, I sympathize with your struggle, I also used to have difficulties with women, but this really isn't healthy. Some nature living vacation with hard physical labor and no internet access might help you get a clear head and make you less neurotic, but risking your life is just plain stupid. I'd certainly consider it entertaining, though.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
8mo ago
Why do they hate us? Why does anti-Western Islamism exist (and before that anti-Western pan-Arabism)? Why did Egypt and Syria and Iraq all move to favour the Soviet Union? Why does Iran hate us? In a nutshell - Israel.
I think you're being very naive here, and also with Ukraine. I'm hardly a hardliner on both issues - back during Maidan time I was actually in favour of the russian territories getting their independence referendum, and I currently work together with different muslim researchers that work in arabic universities. I can see the value of working with people even if they have very different values. But the arabic world has been opposed to the west for a long time now. The alliance with the soviets was purely out of convenience and correspondingly never very stable. The Israeli issue might be the most legible complaint they can give us, but I'm quite confident that if we had given up on the Israelis we'd have different things we'd be fighting over with them. Likewise, they can take our aid and weapons and then abandon us if it suits them just fine, and in terms of their own worldview they'd be perfectly justified in doing so. The same goes for Russia, there was a time where there was a decent chance they may switch to the western side, but I don't see such a chance with the current leadership anymore.
There are a whole host of differences here, like said annexations happening within living memory (Golan Heights for example), a large population of forcibly displaced Mexicans wanting to go back to New Mexico and the fact that there's no European union of states. Europe and North America aren't even on the same continent as Israel, it's a different region entirely. Mexico also isn't the world's largest oil producer. New Mexico in this case, I assume, is not a nuclear power.
The key here is how people identify their teams. Most people nowadays consider themselves something like "Team Western World", which spans the globe and so to them being on different continents is not a reason to not send (military) aid. You, from what I can gather, consider yourself primarily "Team America", so I gave an example that applies directly to America, to get you in a similar headspace as the average Israel supporter. It's not about the example being perfectly comparable - it never is - , the purpose is to understand how others think about an issue due to their values differences. If you want, you may imagine many displaced Mexicans - with the average values as other Mexicans - wanting to live in New Mexico for the purpose of the example, and similar.
Precisely. It's foolish to ally with weak countries that have little marginal value, angering strong countries in the process. The economic consequences of our Ukraine initiative is already hitting Europe hard. Strength should be conserved and wielded where it's most needed, which is clearly Asia. Angering Russia by getting involved in Ukraine opens up a second front, gives China a useful, resource-rich ally and worsens our position overall.
Imo, depending on Russia in terms of energy was foolish long before the Ukraine, and having to look for other options was overdue. I'd surely have preferred if we had followed your tag line and build enough nuclear plants to be independent before the conflict, though. Likewise arming Ukraine is actually a reasonably cheap way of bleeding Russia, and the basic logic of geopolitics dictates, independent of Ukraine, that Russia had to align itself with China if it has any aspirations of defending against westernization and being a superpower. If we were to give up on Ukraine, they could just take it ... and ally with China anyway. In the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has actually shown remarkable weakness (and/or Ukraine has shown remarkable strength). It is reasonable to conclude that this is a good point to invest resources to strengthen your position.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Getting a tag isn't inherently negative. A bluecheck is technically also a tag that some people think negatively about, but on average it's still mainly a positive. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain kind of person would actually trust publications with a "government owned" tag more than one without, and the position that argues for this is mostly rather consistent and plausible, even if I may disagree with it (or more precisely, I think the funding matters for the direction, but not the degree of the bias).
On the other hand, I does seem to be rather petty from Musk, and I would actually prefer if everything gets a tag for its funding, not just public institutions. But I'm also in general someone who likes having lots of categories for everything.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
No, I do not think that the average women high-five each other every time they get pumped & dumped by a high status man and I find the insinuation rather insulting.
What I do claim however is that the average woman who struggles to find a long-term partner (note that this is already not the average woman) often has already been asked out by perfectly respectable similar-status men but rejected them for flimsy reasons. If you confront them and ask, well, among the people you know, who would you be willing to date, they'll frequently mention a single, maybe two or three, high-status married men (or, to take an extreme example, the aforementioned non-existent Prof. Brad Pitt). Depending on their taste, they might instead be into a flaky artist they've been having an on-off relationship/affair with for years, their boss, or their most popular co-worker, but the principle stays the same. Their obvious main issue is that among their peers, they simply deem no men worthy of being in a relationship with them, except the ones that clearly have other options. The moment they actually want to settle down and have a family, they'll often find someone in an instant. It's just they're still hoping for a better deal.
On the other hand the average man who struggles to find a long-term partner has already asked out similar or slightly below status women than themselves and been rejected. If you confront them and ask, well, among the people you know, who would you be willing to date, they'll give you a long list of all their female friends, as well as most their female co-workers except the batshit crazy or disfigured, and the same for female acquaintances that may even be significantly below their own status. Their obvious main issue is that among their peers, they simply are not deemed worthy of being in a relationship by almost all women (no, a women telling other women to date him bc he's so "nice" doesn't count). If they wanted to reliably find a girl, they would have to go to great and unusual lengths that may even cause their peers to lose respect for them, like going to Thailand and hitting on every non-prostitute they can find. Otherwise their main options are a) waiting until the women among their peers become sufficiently desperate with age or b) work harder to become higher-status. But unfortunately the latter is a zero-sum approach that will mostly kick down other men even further.
For reference, I'm talking about upper-middle class behaviour here (i.e. the group of people we hear the most complaining from & about). So, well-mannered people with decent hygiene, good work ethic and enough income that any reasonable family can be provided for. I'm a research postdoc at a decent western university, and the number of women with frankly delusional expectations and a surprising amount of sneering disgust towards even slightly below their status men that try to hit on them is downright frightening. Single female professors with bitter attitudes towards the male professors who dared to marry a non-professor are basically a running joke. Plenty of my wife's female acquaintances and friends, who are mostly also researchers, therapists, or I/O psychologists at companies show exactly the behaviour described above, and my wife, who has also become a bit sick of their attitudes, occasionally digs a little deeper into who would actually be good enough for them, and it's reliably exactly who you'd expect.
And to repeat myself, I'm specifically talking about the women who claim to struggle to find a partner, not those that are in stable long-term relationships (I do think women in general are hypergamous, but for most women that preference is weak enough to not lead to this obvious failure mode). And also to be clear, I have plenty of gripes with male mate-finding behaviour as well and do not consider women's behaviour worse overall. But the topic here is the existence of female hypergamy, and the specific issue of a seeming pandemic of unhappy single people is in my opinion mainly caused by female hypergamy, and not by men playing too much video games or similar claims in mainstream journalism.
As an aside, I'm also quite frustrated how reliably every time one complains about how much men suck as a group in some way (they're more violent & criminal, they constantly try sleeping around if given the chance, they flake on family duties, they're less reliable in general, etc. are all things I genuinely think are true on average), it's just everyone nodding along, but if one mentions a single way in which women might not be so great, they get these ridiculous assertions thrown at them.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1d ago
I guess Outward was a worse example than i thought. It definitely "feels" indie in many ways, but probably is more like A game instead of AAA.
Nevertheless, even if I think about "true" Indie such as Trese Brothers, I struggle to think of examples that aren't noticably woke unless they literally have no story involving humanoids whatsoever (and even then, they sometimes somehow manage).
RenOS
Dadder than dad
8d ago
Don't worry, as a Paki Indian in the UK you're bottom very slightly above bottom rung in terms of dating, and being a doctor is roughly comparable to construction worker in terms of income there.
On a more serious note, I've noticed that men who are having decent success (in terms of lots of matches) on dating apps seem to run into a lot of crazies, and it's unsurprising that psych med students have the worst ratio of all. Having "doctor/psych trainee" in your dating app bio kind of screams "do therapy for free, but you can tip me with sex". Neurotypical women also don't really want to date, they want to have a stable relationship, so they spend as little time as possible on these apps, so you're already oversampling from a biased sample.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
18d ago
Yes, I'm also considering writing a post about (the loss of) trust which imo explains large parts of our current problems. Blacks have lost trust in whites ever since the colonial era's blatant racism, and only ideologies that strongly denounce this past manage to successfully build a coalition with them. The right has lost the trust in public institutions since many of them blatantly push a left-wing agenda, sometimes even above the interests of the institutions they nominally belong to. Center-left people disgruntled with wokeness don't trust the right with power due to the moral majority & McCarthy era and more recently the rights failures to replace laws and institutions they got rid of with functional replacements.
The same is happening on the country level; Russia, after briefly moving towards the west shortly after the fall of the USSR, has lost the trust in the west due to consistent "will never happen -> has already happened, sorry" Nato-creep. China, India and many other non-western ascendent countries feel likewise betrayed by a western attitude they interpret as "we totally tolerate all cultures, except everything about them that's not about exotic food and funny clothes, or else you're a fascist and we'll punish you with sanctions".
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1mo ago
What you call milquetoast false-centrism, I'd call regular centrism. I know Corona is your hobbyhorse, but the FDP was if anything overly critical compared to the center (which suits me, since I also was on the critical side).
On the AFD, the FDP is explicitly on the record as being against the Verbotsverfahren. Privately, I've argued multiple times that the AFD has a point, and that as long as the german political establishment is unwilling to tackle the dysfunctional, barely existent border and immigration politics, they will only get stronger. This is reasonably close to the stated position of the FDP, though I suspect that being libertarians they're more in favor of open borders than I'd like, but unfortunately we don't have a topic-based voting law.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1mo ago
Looking at it, it's imo clearly in the tradition of Fire Emblem and Advance Wars, not XCOM. Though the artstyle is still a bit overly cute for my taste, it seems not as bad as some other games.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1mo ago
Again, it's not a lack of interest, it's that as a 42-year-old virgin loser, my prospects are non-existent — unless you've got some some sort of new advice how to remedy that?
That's certainly problematic, but imo not as bad as you think it is. As a man it's easy to fall into a life where your contact with the fairer sex is minimal, and dating events/apps do not suit everyone. But to turn it around, you're basically dating on hard mode. Alaska does not have as bad of a sex ratio as I remembered, but it's still pretty lopsided, it's not exactly known to be full of extroverts and depending on where exactly you are there might not even be that many people in total in the area. As a (presumably white?) US citizen there's a long list of countries where it's extremely easy to find a partner even if you're arguably a loser. Latin america & eastern europe are good options, and asian countries are amazing bc asian women are really, really into white guys.
Financial reasons and what little family I have prevent this
You don't need to stay there forever, nor do you need to go there as a tourist. Unless you're the only carer for someone close, in which case I truly feel bad for you; I've seen a few cases where someone was stuck in a place they hated with no way out for 10+ years because they were the only one giving a shit about their sick mother/dad/grandparent/whatever.
Given that you're clearly reasonably intelligent, and even assuming that you're unreliable, lazy and/or physically disabled, I admittedly have a hard time believing that you can't find some (no matter how marginal!) employment to save up some money. In the worst case Mechanical Turk or such. Plenty of countries are ridiculously cheap in terms of both getting there and in living expenses if you're a childless western single eating regular supermarket food and staying in private accomodation. I read that you have some debt to your parents, but as a parent myself I can confidently say that if my chronically depressed son suddenly tried to get his act together and save up money to life somewhere else bc this place is killing him, I wouldn't mind just writing that debt off. Not claiming that any of this is easy or guaranteed to work, but remember, if you end up offing yourself you'll hurt your parents by far the most compared to any other option.
On the other hand, if you think you're incapable of living on our own due to mental issues and the government agrees, are there any options at all for shared living arrangements in your area? I know it's not ideal - even if you get a spot most people there will be noticeably mentally handicapped, which can be frustrating for someone who isn't - but it gives you a community, which is imo critical, and there is a good chance that you can help the others there to some degree as well, and they also often offer government-supported employment for people who are normally difficult to employ.
Lastly, have you ever tried online gaming guilds and similar? Again it's not ideal - you don't even attempt to be a productive member of society in that case - but it's another good way of finding community for the struggling. Also, it can be an OK-ish source of untaxed, albeit usually very marginal, income depending on the game.
I've been on meds since my first suicide attempt back in 2004. This is me on meds.
Yeah, that sucks. Depression meds are notoriously unreliable, with a side dish of occasionally making people suddenly kill themselves even if their depression hadn't been that bad beforehand. @self_made_human is of course correct that you sometimes have to cycle through a lot of meds until you find something that works for you, but I can understand wanting to stick with a med that is at least tolerable.
The Bobbiverse kinda sidesteps this issue since the entire point of the series that after a (near) human extinction, the self-replicating AI called Bob becomes it's own spacefaring empire. So there's a decent number of different characters in the main plot, it's just that they're all Bobs. While their values increasingly diverge as he's replicating himself, they generally are recognisably the same kind of nerdy programmer type the original Bob was (and it's implied that some of the latest generations of Bobs diverge even further). On the other hand, it's a book with an unusual lot of sideplots, humans didn't get entirely wiped out and there are a few other species, so there is a small number of non-Bob characters which get okay characterisation. It's sufficiently weird and imo enjoyable to listen to give it a try.
World of Chains is on the other hand a fairly standard Fantasy-RPG setting. One of the main points in the first books is specifically that the MC behaved like an ass to the major of the town he started the game in - which is in the middle of nowhere so he can't go anywhere else - so he has to patch up his relations with the entire town since, unsurprisingly, the major is pretty popular. Most individuals are reasonable people with reasonable motivation, including the major and her supporters. But since it's an RPG in-universe, there are a few enemies that are almost comical archvillain-tier of badness and some oddness around how quests and NPC behaviour/reputation works, but it's explicitly talked about.
Overall both stories regularly have situations where it's implied or explicitly stated that the MC has made a mistake (especially in the bobbiverse, where different Bobs are MCs in different parts of the story and they don't always agree with each other). Admittedly I'd say both stories seem pretty strong on the self-insert - for both Bob and Daniel (WoC's MC) I wouldn't be surprised if their backstory is literally the actual life of their respective authors. And also, both books have a bit stiff prose that is pretty common among nerd writers. And they're very obviously progression fantasies, so while the MCs do make mistakes along the way, they never screw up so badly that they're done for (on the other hand, for Bob this is only true in the aggregate - some Bobs do in fact fail and die).
RenOS
Dadder than dad
3mo ago
I don't think it's necessary to use for every birth, just consistent usage for people who struggle with pregnancy in the first place & people with certain known problems (I'm deliberately vague here because I think there is a wide range of reasonable policies that should be subject to debate by both the public and experts to collectively find out what we find or find not adequate to select against) is likely to be sufficient to make effective dysgenics per generation almost zero or even turn it around. Many dysfunctions and abnormalities impact fertility, so even just better embryo selection for those that already use IVF is imo likely to impact dysgenics more than you'd naively expect. From the initial data I've seen, simple general-health PGS is likely to even substantially improve the chances for a successful pregnancy beyond what the existing standard tests do, so it's win-win for absolutely everyone.
My first rough idea is something like this:
- Make sequencing (again, deliberately vague because while I think deep WGS should be the goal, WES, larger SNP arrays, etc. would be a big step up compared to current practice) for would-be (in the sense of planning, not already pregnant obviously) parents completely free. Even if we assume every second parent takes you up on this, and even assuming one of the most costly option, 100x WGS at ca. 1k (see Nebula for example), this is more in the ballpark of low single digit billions. Probably we will go for a cheaper option, and probably less parents will use it initially, so in practice I'd expect less than a billion.
- Only if the parents fulfill the aforementioned "certain known problems" they will also have access to free IVF + embryo selection. Likewise, people that get regular IVF due to struggling to get pregnant also get free genetics-based embryo selection by default on top. Here there is a wide range of costs; I'd probably be initially in favor of a policy that subsidizes only the worst 1% or so. So this would again be in the low single digit billions or less than a billion depending on the take-up.
- We can also save a lot by only subsidizing it for people who can't afford it otherwise, but I'm personally against such policies since they have bad incentives imo. But it's an option on the table that would slash the cost down substantially.
I think such a program would be very cost-effective initially as mainly people who already have family histories take it up + those struggling to get pregnant. Over time, success and normalisation would increase the take-up and hence costs, but - and here you can call me out I guess - I think the scaling will more than make up for it. Remember, dysgenics is a pretty slow long-term problem, it's fine if it takes some time, as long as we get the process started and don't just completely ignore it.
In my ideal future, it's completely normal and free for everyone to have access to their own genome through ultra-deep WGS, access to several different risk scores for various diseases, abnormalities and dysfunctions for themselves, there is simple, accessible software that can estimate the joint risk for the same things for the offspring of any two people, and there are clear, commonly agreed guidelines when embryo-selection is subsidized or free for you (ideally with a linear or a multi step function instead of a simple free vs full price). All in addition to full-price IVF/embryo selection for those who don't agree with guidelines and want to select for the things they personally care about. And in think this ideal future is actually possible even just with the current technology level.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
4mo ago
Happy new year! My resolution this year is to get more done and to be more effective. I'm sad to admit that I'm dreadfully passive in general, I only ever do the absolute minimum to get by and spend the rest of time consuming content such as games, reading trivia online, etc. I'm still reasonably successful - a postdoc in a topic I care about - but my PhD was a letdown as judged by me, and I do have the impression that at least part of my success so far is due to being sociable. I end up on papers I contributed little to because I get along well with almost everyone, I'm always in the good graces of my superiors often to the degree of being personal friends so that they judge me less harshly and tolerate my excuses, etc. That makes me, in a certain sense, exactly the kind of person I loathe the most - A leech that contributes little but still falls upward through social manipulation. I'm not actually quite that bad, but I'm not the person I want to be.
As a result, I've decided on a number of specific measures: 1) I'll not read the CW Roundup or scroll through any other longer thread on any forum or play mobile games until the evening of every day, after I've gotten my day's work done 2) I'll concentrate on starting discussions on purposeful topics I care about intrinsically (such as this post), and avoid reactively ranting because "somebody is wrong on the internet" 3) Generally be less tolerant of my procrastinating habits - no I don't need to read something every time I I go on the toilet, no I don't need to play a "short round" of a mobile game because I got something trivial done, no I don't need to start the day by reading the news ... 4) Every day in the evening, I'll review my day to see whether I've done what I planned to do and make a list of the things I want to do the next day. In particular, I'll judge myself more harshly than normal and if I didn't manage, I'll have to do it in the evening instead of more pleasant activities.
I'll probably fall short of my expectations again, but I'm happy about any improvement, it doesn't need to be a total change of life in the end.
So, mottizens, I have two questions for you:
- What are your new years resolutions?
- For the successful among you, what are the things you do to stay on track?
How do you figure? Looking at the graph, oil was at ca 80 in the mid 70s and then crushed all the way down to ca 45 in the mid 80s. I guess you can argue that it can't be the only factor since it was lower beforehand, but it seems reasonable that the USSR was at least partially kept afloat by high crude prices in the 70s and 80s until Reagan pulled the rug on that.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
5mo ago
You're not getting my point (also, I'm european, so no, this isn't about america for me). As humans have a rather high inter-individual variance, you can do this game on any level. If I say mediterranean is a good group, you can point out well-known differences between, say, north and south italy. If I say fine, then surely south italian is a good category? Then you can point out differences between more local groups, then between families and finally, individuals. And you will always get more precise this way, despite ending up with a nonsensical "grouping" of one each.
So the imo correct way is to see this as a precision-practicality tradeoff. In any given population, the largest ~2-5 groups that have consistent differences between them are the most practical while still retaining a comparatively good precision (this is incidentally the way people instinctively group other people everywhere in the world). So if you're looking worldwide, that is black vs white vs asian. If you're in africa, it's something like bantu/bantoid vs hausa/hamitic/semitic vs others. If you're specifically in India, it's Indo-Aryan vs Dravidian vs Tibeto-Burman (btw, looking this up it's very unfortunate how consistently wikipedia is trying to reduce everything to culture/language and steadfastly ignores the biological dimension of ethnicities, but that's the general modern biases at work).
RenOS
Dadder than dad
6mo ago
When I was browsing 4chan I've seen images of Hamas soldiers showing off a dead girl with only underpants on. No links though.
If you want to quibble that it's technically not fully nude be my guest, but that's about as convincing to me as "well it wasn't rape bc she was already dead".
As I said, modern live expectancy is imo generally not strongly selected. That includes women.
If you look at biological differences between men and women, men are clearly optimized for warfare, hunting and recovering from serious injuries, while women are optimized for childbirth and -rearing as well as general health. There are for example some studies showing differences such as men and women actually recovering at different speed from serious injuries, or the other way around, women being sick less seriously and recovering faster from common diseases.
Furthermore, men are much higher variance because a single men can father literal thousands of children, and many real-life examples of those did not actually enjoy a particularly long life expectancy. On the other hand, women can at most have a number of children in the low double-digits and critically, need to look after them for 15+ yrs after their birth. Therefore, as a women there is little benefit in being exceptional and a lot of benefit in just being boring healthy and fertile for as long as possible. Remember, historically adults lived ca 60 yrs, which is only ca 20 yrs after fertility. Healthy lifespan was more in the fifties. So (healthy) longevity significantly past childrearing age wasn't really a thing. Yes their oldest children may have children that the grandparents can care for, but that's not the primary reason for their lifespan; The primary reason is that they still may have children themselves that might need caring. Also keep in mind that evolutionary selection usually works on smooth curves and generalities, not on perfect sharp optimums. Even if the theoretic optimum female lifespan were to, say, live exactly for 15 yrs after the birth of your last child and then drop dead instantly, evolution instead just selects for better general health until you have a 90% chance to survive that long. This may cause you to live 5 extra "unnecessary" years on average, but it's still worth it to avoid dying prematurely.
In my opinion, longevity past 60 is primarily a result of modern healthcare, and as such not evolutionary selected directly. The female-male gap is probably mainly due to better female general health, which itself is partially a result of biological and social differences, which are to different degrees a result of evolutionary selection. For an example of the latter, higher male risk tolerance is technically a social difference, but also an obvious result of evolutionary selection (and most likely rooted in hormonal differences, so partially biological as well).
Btw though, there is also some research around grandparentry being positively selected, though I do not consider it compelling. It's imo similar to the gay uncle hypothesis, superficially plausible but it doesn't really work out once you look into the details. For example, I just looked into an old colleague of mine who showed us a game theoretic model in a meeting ca 7-8 years ago where under certain assumptions longevity significantly past fertility was positively selected. Apparently he did not end up publishing it, and I strongly suspect it's because the assumptions were very questionable.
That might have been me. For LitRPG, 'World of Chains' was an enjoyable listen for me (and the compendium, books 1-3 at 45 hours total, is listed as a single audiobook on audible!), but not quite as good as DCC. My bigger recommendation would be the Bobbiverse series, which is technically not considered a progression fantasy and rather just goes under "SciFi". But fundamentally, it follows the trajectory of an initially powerless AI (which is itself just a copy of the mind of the eponymous Bob) towards literally settling the universe, so imo it's conceptually in the same space.
More options
Context Copy link