Useful anti-cooking article to fool the gullible people on the pro-cooked side

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2940851/How-dawn-farming-ruined-TEETH-Ancient-jaws-shrank-triggered-dental-crowding-started-cooking-processing-food.html

Lovely article blaming cooking for the poor dental health among modern humans, ever since agriculture. Of course, a lack of (raw) meat, the introduction of grains and dairy and legumes is more than likely the culprit, and Weston-Price is somewhat correct, given that hunter-gatherers on a semi-cooked diet still had (relatively) good teeth, but the above  is a very useful article for RPDers to point to , nevertheless, when criticising Wrangham etc.

[van]

can we change your subject title by omitting 'idiots'?

[JeuneKoq]

I side with Van.

[TylerDurden]

can we change your subject title by omitting 'idiots'?

The term "useful idiots" is now a generic political term, more meant as a primarily descriptive term to describe highly gullible people than a pejorative one. Oh well, how about "gullible people"? Changing it now. I suppose the old term is somewhat politically-biased since it came about because of McCarthyism.

[sabertooth]

How about this bullet point from the article, its as laughable as it is misleading. "#Hunter-gatherers required larger jaws to chew raw vegetables"

According to this article the powerful jaws of hunter gatherer man were solely for chewing up vegies. Whoever wrote that must have never had to munch down on a set of ribs or chew the connective tissue on a knuckle bone.

[cherimoya_kid]

According to some recent research by the WAPF, the narrowing of the skull that contributes to smaller jaws (and therefore crooked teeth) is caused by a vitamin deficiency, vitamin K-2. Of course, vitamin-D also must play a role as well.

[sabertooth]

It could be an adaptation to economize the limited nutritional resources. In agrarian people who lived on the edge of malnutrition, the brain and vital organs would get the brunt of the nutrients, leaving parts of the skeleton and muscular structure that were not as essential, withered.

[cherimoya_kid]

It could be an adaptation to economize the limited nutritional resources. In agrarian people who lived on the edge of malnutrition, the brain and vital organs would get the brunt of the nutrients, leaving parts of the skeleton and muscular structure that were not as essential, withered.

indeed. Agreed.

[sabertooth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwia62Suo0
This seems relevant, I especially find his future projection of what man may become amusing.

[TylerDurden]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwia62Suo0
This seems relevant, I especially find his future projection of what man may become amusing.

He is wrong, we can reverse domestication. Just breed humans with greater levels of testosterone-production and I suspect our brains will grow 11% bigger like in palaeo times.

[JeuneKoq]

He is wrong, we can reverse domestication. Just breed humans with greater levels of testosterone-production and I suspect our brains will grow 11% bigger like in palaeo times.

For that to happen shouldn't people actually be put back into these "paleo" life environments? We also may not need such big brains anymore for this reason, like people in space don't need great bone density because there's almost no gravity to fight.

[TylerDurden]

For that to happen shouldn't people actually be put back into these "paleo" life environments? We also may not need such big brains anymore for this reason, like people in space don't need great bone density because there's almost no gravity to fight.

I am sure that a little genetic tinkering would achieve that without needing to walk around naked carrying a big stick or flint-knife etc.! You do have a point, though. I have been recently thinking about how dangerous it is for us humans to automate virtually everything as I fear we will eventually end up in the future as passive beings without any creative intelligence left as we  already leave far too much work/effort to machines. Not much intelligence is needed to just push a button.

[sabertooth]

Our testosterone, physical strength and brain size diminishing, must be a sign that the high testosterone, extremely physical power, larger brained traits, are no longer a determining factor in reproductive success among modern man. Such people if they lived in a modern metropolis may not be able to cope very well living in the type of confined conditions imposed by modern society.( much in the same way the grey wolf does not make the best house pet.)

There has to be a middle ground in which to aim our aspirations. Perhaps the modern human race does not need to regain the level of cunning, bruit strength and 5000 calorie a day raw energy input a day, that our paleo ancestors needed to thrive. The best we could hope for is that more optimal forms of domesticated humans can be bred with traits that allow us to regain some of our past attributes, and then incorporate those qualities into modern life , so that we can have the best of both worlds  . Just as in domesticated dogs there are some very intelligent and strong breeds, such as the German shepherds who have the strength and intelligence of a wolf, as well as the ability to live in tune with human domestic life.

[TylerDurden]

There has to be a middle ground in which to aim our aspirations. Perhaps the modern human race does not need to regain the level of cunning, brute strength and 5000 calorie a day raw energy input a day, that our paleo ancestors needed to thrive. The best we could hope for is that more optimal forms of domesticated humans can be bred with traits that allow us to regain some of our past attributes, and then incorporate those qualities into modern life , so that we can have the best of both worlds  . Just as in domesticated dogs there are some very intelligent and strong breeds, such as the German shepherds who have the strength and intelligence of a wolf, as well as the ability to live in tune with human domestic life.

  German shepherds, technically, do NOT have the strength and intelligence of the wolf. Wolves outperform all dogs as regards intelligence as well as  strength:-

http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Which_Dog_Breed_Has_the_Strongest_Jaw

http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/04/01/domesticated-dummies/

The most intelligent dogs are, reputedly, border collies and the strongest dogs, by jaw, are either the rottweiler or the doberman.

Of course, all we need is a form of survival of the fittest and our descendants would become as clever and strong as our Cro-Magnon ancestors. All one would need to do is enforce vasectomies and the blocking the fallopian tubes, as applicable, for those unable to meet  certain intelligence and strength standards at puberty, and, within  a number of generations, I predict our descendants  could eventually  get an average  brain-size as large as the 2000(!) cubic centimetres that the most advanced Neanderthals had. No need to hunt for food with wooden spears or whatever.

[JeuneKoq]

Of course, all we need is a form of survival of the fittest and our descendants would become as clever and strong as our Cro-Magnon ancestors. All one would need to do is enforce vasectomies and the blocking the fallopian tubes, as applicable, for those unable to meet  certain intelligence and strength standards at puberty, and, within  a number of generations, I predict our descendants  could eventually  get an average  brain-size as large as the 2000(!) cubic centimetres that the most advanced Neanderthals had. No need to hunt for food with wooden spears or whatever.

Well, we can clearly see your Austrian heritage is expressing itself at its best (or worse) here, if you follow my line of thoughts....

Again, what is the point of having brains as big as Paleo man, be strong as Paleo man, if you keep on living in the modern world? With no environmental pressure, you'll never get to your desired results.

Again, imagine if space man had the same idea as you and decided to sterilize people that did not meet a certain degree of bone density. MAYBE they'd temporarily end up with an end population gifted with high enough (whatever that would mean to them) bone density, until EVOLUTION continues to obey its laws of modeling the living being to thrive in a particular environment(in this case: zero gravity space) and make these space people inevitably lose bone. Then again, what would be the point of having high bone density if you're basically never going to make actual use of it?

If you want to live in a World of the Fittest, you have to find yourself in an environment where being the fittest is the only way to ensure survival of the individual, and the specie. If that is not the case, being the fittest is in essence meaningless.

[TylerDurden]

Well, we can clearly see your Austrian heritage is expressing itself at its best (or worse) here, if you follow my line of thoughts....

Absurd. If you knew even a tiny bit  about history, you would have stated(also wrongly,but more insightfully) instead that it was my British heritage that inspired me  re these sort of beliefs, not my Austrian one, since the British originated the whole notion in the first place, if only in modern times. In actual practice, no single country can be considered to have eugenics as its heritage, anyway,  as it is a concept independent of history, and my stance is actually  based on my own experience (with a strong influence from SF books and stories!) . More to the point, the Spartans and Palaeo peoples and most other populations had to  practise eugenics of various kinds all the time, just in order to survive, some even going further than necessary such as the Spartans - so, don't blame just one or two countries(!). A classic very recent modern example in the news  is that of the Armenian woman , married to a New Zealander, who refused to keep the baby because it had Down's Syndrome and that meant she had to give it away, according to Armenian tradition as it brought shame on her family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942221/Father-forced-choose-wife-Downs-syndrome-newborn-son-family-ashamed-baby-s-condition-raise-own.html

. The alternative was to perish(infanticide was very common in palaeo times, for instance - somehow I do not think that ancient peoples would have spared the life of a mentally retarded child instead of a normal infant, etc. - they just did not have the luxury). My point is therefore, that the more we turn away from Nature, the more we will gradually destroy ourselves until we become extinct. We are already experiencing all sorts of problems such as increased rates of myopia, decreasing average worldwide IQs and so on and on. So returning to Nature/rewilding is a useful option. Nature, is kind but also cruel, live with the pain....Ah, this paragraph  reminds me of a number of SF stories. Indeed, it is a very common SF theme.

Again, what is the point of having brains as big as Paleo man, be strong as Paleo man, if you keep on living in the modern world? With no environmental pressure, you'll never get to your desired results.

You can, however, mimic some results. I will give you an example. I know a scientist who had  chicken subjects live in 2G gravity and the like for long periods of time(due to centrifuge machines), and they came out much stronger than before. For improving the brain, we can immerse ourselves into a more heavy problem-solving environment such as , I don't know, virtual reality/pitting our minds against improved AI etc. etc., instead of  just  steadily automating all jobs to the point where we are just mindlessly pushing lots of tiny buttons.

Again, imagine if space man had the same idea as you and decided to sterilize people that did not meet a certain degree of bone density. MAYBE they'd temporarily end up with an end population gifted with high enough (whatever that would mean to them) bone density, until EVOLUTION continues to obey its laws of modeling the living being to thrive in a particular environment(in this case: zero gravity space). Then again, what would be the point of having high bone density if you're basically never going to make actual use of it?

Well, I read somewhere that blacks have a much higher bone-density than other  races. Plus, scientists have shown that with increased hard exercise in zero-G, issues such as bone-loss can be overcome to some extent, along with diet. Plus, mimicking Earth gravity with human centrifuge machines a la 2001 film would solve the overall problem. And one could genetically engineer people to never lose bone-mass during zero-G.

To give an example of what I mean, let us say that the Earth needed colonists for a planet with the sea-level having thin air of the sort found  only c. 6000 metres or above on Earth. Would it not make sense to introduce Tibetans or Indios from the Andean Altiplano to such a planet and encourage them to introduce eugenics/genetic engineering to enable their descendants to even live and breed  in the mountains of such a planet? Or, to give yet another example of science fiction, what if we encounter a world with only ocean and no land? Would it not make sense to either allow humans to  genetically engineer those humans already best able to keep their breath underwater so that they can stay as long underwater as sperm whales, or to just genetically engineer gills?

If you want to live in a World of the Fittest, you have to find yourself in an environment where being the fittest is the only way to ensure survival of the individual, and the specie. If that is not the case, being the fittest is in essence meaningless.

Well, there are many species on Earth who live in a perfect system where they are indeed the fittest wild species around and would thrive if not for Mankind - and many of these do not necessarily need intelligence or strength to survive, so a random survival of the fittest scenario might not work, anyway . In a domesticated world, where, let's be honest, our homes are nothing more than cages in a zoo, however, we likely will be forced to mimic Nature's survival of the fittest as best we can. The alternative may otherwise be that we end up as lacking in intellect as our homo erectus ancestors within a few thousand generations.

[JeuneKoq]

Absurd. If you knew even a tiny bit  about history, you would have stated(also wrongly,but more insightfully) instead that it was my British heritage that inspired me(...)

Come on, you know very well I wrote what I wrote because you were expressing Hitler-ish ideas... I don't care that much about who thought about eugenics first...

Disposing of an individual that was so mentally or physically challenged that survival of the group was at peril made sense in ancient times, in the case where they would then have to adapt to this individual's pace. That's why basically no one survived a broken leg in Paleo times...

Even though it has been reported that groups of elephants would progress to the pace of a Down-syndromed member, as long as the group was not endangered.

So perhaps this "instinct" of rejecting a handicapped child has remained for some part in the human's mind, which explains why this Armenian woman would want to kill her baby.
However this obviously goes against this other human instinct of compassion for others, which is why society generally condemn the act of killing another person, disabled or not. Especially now that it is possible for these limited individuals to live an almost normal life in our modern world, where no true threat remains (no predators other than man himself, no or little risk of starvation and famine...).

My point is therefore, that the more we turn away from Nature, the more we will gradually destroy ourselves until we become extinct. We are already experiencing all sorts of problems such as increased rates of myopia, decreasing average worldwide IQs and so on and on. So returning to Nature/rewilding is a useful option. Nature, is kind but also cruel, live with the pain....

I thought you first meant bringing Paleo man criterion (big brain, great strength) to modern world standards. We both agree then, that rewilding is useful (I would say essential) to make those desired characteristics express themselves in a useful way again.


I won't get into those Sci-fi theory talks, however faithful and predicting of mankind's future they might be, or not. Maybe the universe wants us to remain on our lovely blue planet. Maybe not. I mean, will we really be happier elsewhere?

For improving the brain, we can immerse ourselves into a more heavy problem-solving environment such as , I don't know, virtual reality/pitting our minds against improved AI etc. etc., instead of  just  steadily automating all jobs to the point where we are just mindlessly pushing lots of tiny buttons.

The thing is, our brain has been working very hard since the beginning on making our lives the easiest, carefree-est and most relaxed possible. It is still in a survival scheme of conserving the most energy it can. Although it is doing us more harm, now that few humans on this planet will ever experience truly life-threatening situations that would urge a person to gather enough energy to be as mentally and physically active as it can, it will still continue to scheme in this same manner, in case such dangerous situation happens, and thus we will unconsciously continue our pursuit of the most comfortable life possible.

However, this other survival program of "joy in game" counter-balances the former and makes us find joy in completing challenges, most of the time against others, and keeps us fit and conditioned for life-threatening situation requiring those same skills. That's why people enjoy running 40km for no valid reason other than the pleasure found in the effort itself, or for the sake of beating one's own -or another's- best score.

So we can see in this way that the unconscious/survival mind's logic is a mix of both strategies: keeping fit and ready "just in case", while conserving enough energy "just in case". So this problem-solving environment you were theorizing about will never be too complex, in my opinion, as to unconsciously pose a potential threat to the individual's integrity. Plus, why not just go out there in the wilderness? Feels so much better, so much more...palpable.

[TylerDurden]

Come on, you know very well I wrote what I wrote because you were expressing Hitler-ish ideas... I don't care that much about who thought about eugenics first...

I was pointing out the obvious, that eugenics has been a valid concept that people have believed in for countless millenia among all ethnic groups, and that I was inspired by palaeo-era "survival of the fittest" among other things instead. The reference to Hitler is unfortunate as it is generally considered in the Internet that anyone who uses the"reductio ad hitlerum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
 tactic has lost the argument as  the  gimmick is considered rather lame, being heavily overused and almost always used in a wrong context. For  example Hitler was fond of motorways and dogs and scientists from Nazi Germany enabled spaceflight to the Moon to occur, but that does not mean we should get rid of any of these!

Disposing of an individual that was so mentally or physically challenged that survival of the group was at peril made sense in ancient times, in the case where they would then have to adapt to this individual's pace. That's why basically no one survived a broken leg in Paleo times...

Even though it has been reported that groups of elephants would progress to the pace of a Down-syndromed member, as long as the group was not endangered.

So perhaps this "instinct" of rejecting a handicapped child has remained for some part in the human's mind, which explains why this Armenian woman would want to kill her baby.
However this obviously goes against this other human instinct of compassion for others, which is why society generally condemn the act of killing another person, disabled or not. Especially now that it is possible for these limited individuals to live an almost normal life in our modern world, where no true threat remains (no predators other than man himself, no or little risk of starvation and famine...).

So you partially agree, at least as regards  the need for eugenics in ancient times. As regards compassion, I am sure you have heard of the concept "being cruel to be kind". The point is that Nature is a mixture of compassion and cruelty. So, for example, an animal  may look after its offspring and lovingly care for it, but, if the offspring is somehow malformed or whatever, the mother will either reject it or even eat it.

A better example of how truly evil  excessive compassion can be would be to cite my own experience. I have a distant relative who is mentally handicapped(mental age of 2). Now, in palaeo times, this  person would have been quietly abandoned  in the wild at around the age of 3 or 4 when differences became too blatantly obvious, and everything would have been serene for all concerned, even him(since continued  life for him would have been an absolute  misery in palaeo times).Now, his mother was of the Liberal Retard mould, the sort who just  cannot think logically and must think emotionally at all times. So, she refused to put him in an institution with others of his ilk and she tried to pretend he was just as "normal" as everybody else, because treating him in any less way would have been considered by her to be inhumane. The result was that she and her husband could only go out to dinner parties or whatever if their son and daughter looked after their retarded brother in the meantime. Needless to say, this somewhat stunted the lives of their normal offspring. Then this retarded child entered puberty and all hell broke loose. His additional hormones made him, every now and then, go berserk and have to be restrained by members of the public. This would happen, at random, on the Underground or in the Opera(!). Unsurprisingly, his sister had a nervous breakdown, among other things. Then my parents were forced to stay at one of the houses owned by the other family  and were used, instead, as carers for this retarded son when the parents of the child  went out to parties. We had to endure his urinating in the bed every night and so on. He would mindlessly repeat what others had said, over and over again and so on.Needless to say, these oh-so-compassionate parents went out as frequently as they could to parties once they realised they could burden us with their offspring. Anyway, this "person" ended up committing sexual assault on 2 minors, among other things. Eventually, my parents were able to move house and made excuses so as not to have him any more. Somewhat unsurprisingly, soon after, the parents put their retarded offspring into an institution. They had been told that he could only be put in an institution if he was 18 or under, but his mother wanted him to stay with her out of compassion, but, in the end, they had to face reality(ie Mother Nature).
Obviously, my (understated)words cannot fully describe the sheer horror of it all.  I have come across many other cases in the news also, where peoples' lives have been ruined simply because doctors were able to save the life of a (subsequently) severely mentally-and-physically-handicapped person, and then the family had to waste years of their lives caring for the person and squandering vast sums of money on the victim, with the victim living an appalling, worthless life  as a cripple. So compassion can often be the cruellest thing of all. Ah, yes, that reminds me of that poor girl who developed  CFS,but far more severe than what I had, with her ending up only being able to lift a finger, at best, near the end, and her staying endlessly in hospital.Needless to say, the poor girl chose euthanasia.

I won't get into those Sci-fi theory talks, however faithful and predicting of mankind's future they might be, or not. Maybe the universe wants us to remain on our lovely blue planet. Maybe not. I mean, will we really be happier elsewhere?

This "lovely blue planet" will likely be ruined by us, given environmental destruction caused by humans - here in Europe, it is mostly an overconcreted nightmare. Besides, humans have a need to explore new regions and remain alive. I have read somewhere that we only have c. 300 million years to go before the Earth becomes too hot for human survival. It would  be nice for the species to gain some form of immortality. I am, after all, a transhumanist.

The thing is, our brain has been working very hard since the beginning on making our lives the easiest, carefree-est and most relaxed possible. It is still in a survival scheme of conserving the most energy it can. Although it is doing us more harm, now that few humans on this planet will ever experience truly life-threatening situations that would urge a person to gather enough energy to be as mentally and physically active as it can, it will still continue to scheme in this same manner, in case such dangerous situation happens, and thus we will unconsciously continue our pursuit of the most comfortable life possible.

Actually, a lot of humans do not necessarily seek comfort. Some like danger, others want to change the status quo even if it means less comfort than before....

However, this other survival program of "joy in game" counter-balances the former and makes us find joy in completing challenges, most of the time against others, and keeps us fit and conditioned for life-threatening situation requiring those same skills. That's why people enjoy running 40km for no valid reason other than the pleasure found in the effort itself, or for the sake of beating one's own -or another's- best score.

Seeking pleasure sounds too hedonistic. I mean there are plenty of examples of  truly hedonistic societies(eg:- The Versailles of Louis XIV to Louis XVI) but these soon collapsed once grim reality set in.

So we can see in this way that the unconscious/survival mind's logic is a mix of both strategies: keeping fit and ready "just in case", while conserving enough energy "just in case". So this problem-solving environment you were theorizing about will never be too complex, in my opinion, as to unconsciously pose a potential threat to the individual's integrity. Plus, why not just go out there in the wilderness? Feels so much better, so much more...palpable.

What wilderness? The wilderness is being steadily destroyed by Mankind. Even national parks are at risk all over the place. I predict a future in which an overpopulated planet will designate only  a dozen specially cultivated trees as being a "national park".

[JeuneKoq]

I recognize my fault here. Using the Nazi card clearly wasn't a very thoughtful move here, as I hadn't realize at which degree you thought eugenics should be applied. You didn't make it very clear either. As far as I'm concerned, it could've been something in the lines of:

"Can't do 10 tractions in a row kid? Well, looks like you're unfit to become part of our higher race society. 'Gonna have to get your balls chopped off..."

"Having trouble solving that math problem? You're obviously not smart enough for this world. Doing well in other discipline simply isn't enough.... Surely our society cannot tolerate individuals like you reproducing and spreading those deficient genes around. It's vasectomy time for you Bob..."


It's unfortunate that you and your family had to go through this. I agree that when the disability (especially mental) is to severe, keeping such afflicted individual alive doesn't make any sense anymore, as both parties lose from this state of things.

This "lovely blue planet" will likely be ruined by us, given environmental destruction caused by humans - here in Europe, it is mostly an overconcreted nightmare. Besides, humans have a need to explore new regions and remain alive. I have read somewhere that we only have c. 300 million years to go before the Earth becomes too hot for human survival. It would  be nice for the species to gain some form of immortality. I am, after all, a transhumanist.

Wow, ONLY 300 million years  ?!?

  kiding

How are you certain that our planet will be ruined by us? It's quite the case right now, but things change, minds evolve. You can't predict the future based on the activity of a majority (or minority?) of present-day humans.

Actually, a lot of humans do not necessarily seek comfort. Some like danger, others want to change the status quo even if it means less comfort than before....

Seeking pleasure sounds too hedonistic. I mean there are plenty of examples of  truly hedonistic societies(eg:- The Versailles of Louis XIV to Louis XVI) but these soon collapsed once grim reality set in.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I was talking about how the brain works in terms of survival strategies, that expresses themselves unconsciously for the most part.

Those who seek danger are most likely urged by their "must play/ exercise/ keep fit" instinct to put themselves in difficult situations so as to remain prepared in the case where they would unwillingly be put in a similar situation. eg: People go hunting "for fun" and keep conditioned to the act of hunting in case they must one day hunt to ensure their survival. Some climb mountains in case one day they must climb to stay alive.

Also, this is not the definition of pleasure I was talking about. Every living creature seeks pleasure, all the time. That's how the brain works. You find pleasure in eating because your brain associates nourishment with a pleasant feeling. Or else you simply wouldn't do it. All creatures act according to pleasure, or don't. Sometimes the pleasure is found simply in staying alive, or keeping the specie viable.

As for wilderness on earth, I disagree with your pessimistic view of the future. But only time will tell.

[TylerDurden]

I recognize my fault here. Using the Nazi card clearly wasn't a very thoughtful move here, as I hadn't realize at which degree you thought eugenics should be applied. You didn't make it very clear either. As far as I'm concerned, it could've been something in the lines of:

"Can't do 10 tractions in a row kid? Well, looks like you're unfit to become part of our higher race society. 'Gonna have to get your balls chopped off..."

"Having trouble solving that math problem? You're obviously not smart enough for this world. Doing well in other discipline simply isn't enough.... Surely our society cannot tolerate individuals like you reproducing and spreading those deficient genes around. It's vasectomy time for you Bob..."

I did not advocate circumcision, just  vasectomy!  I am all for the end justifies the means if nothing else works, but I do not think one has to do more than is strictly necessary!  Personally, I think the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere would be very  quickly solved if one had to do a certain minimal amount of exercise during a set period  every 5 years in one's youth or face a vasectomy!

Other than the above perhaps rather drastic "meritocratic breeding" notion, there is, of course, a far more humane method, namely libertarian eugenics. State-controlled eugenics is a waste of time, as no mass of men can decide exactly what is best for a specific child born into a specific environment. Libertarian eugenics, on the other hand, would allow parents to select whatever physical or mental characteristics they wanted in a child, assuming science advances enough and totalitarian laws are continually relaxed. Somehow, I doubt that most parents would want an ugly, weak, or stupid child, so, we could reach Cro-Magnon standards eventually.

How are you certain that our planet will be ruined by us? It's quite the case right now, but things change, minds evolve. You can't predict the future based on the activity of a majority (or minority?) of present-day humans.

Currently, even national parks are being wantonly destroyed by various governments to make new canals or for mining etc.. I mean, it is possible , I suppose, that eventually the planet becomes so over-polluted/destroyed that almost all humans perish, thus allowing the very few remaining wildlife to rebound. One only has to look at Czernobyl as an example thereof.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I was talking about how the brain works in terms of survival strategies, that expresses themselves unconsciously for the most part.

Ah, I see.Hmm, what about masochists, then?

[JeuneKoq]

Libertarian eugenics, on the other hand, would allow parents to select whatever physical or mental characteristics they wanted in a child, assuming science advances enough and totalitarian laws are continually relaxed. Somehow, I doubt that most parents would want an ugly, weak, or stupid child, so, we could reach Cro-Magnon standards eventually.

Ugh, the horror!!! A world where everyone's basically a "perfect" clone, all with the same desired characteristics (depending on the current trend)

Year 2034: All girls with giant boobs and butts, all men with giant penises and pecs.

Year 2056: "giant boobs are sooooo 2034! Flat butts and uni-brows are so IN right now!!"

Year 2084: "I don't know how I want my next son to look like. I mean, Vitiligo looks good on the first two, but hypertrichosis (hair growth all over the body) is so cuuute! Plus, Vanity Fair said it's a classic that's here to stay..."


IMO, the sacred mystery circling the emergence of each new being shouldn't be messed with...

Ah, I see.Hmm, what about masochists, then?

The brain, especially human's, has the tendency to memorize and create new survival strategies by association (sorry, it's really hard for me to explain it clearly) drawn from past experiences.
In the case of masochist, one could reason that these individuals where beaten up by their parents during childhood, and so their brain could've possibly made the association "being physically punished/ hit by a loved one (parent)= being loved/cared for= good".
And so, these people will later want to recreate, reenact this feeling of love and caring by demanding to be hit by a partner.

There are methods out there to decode these kind of unnecessary, illogical, harmful survival strategies. It's a work that consist mainly of bringing to the conscious mind those unconscious mechanism, in order to unmake them. This works for people that constantly end up with abusive partners, suicidal people, people with certain illnesses, out-and-out homosexuals...

You know this feeling when you know something, but just can't find ways to explain it appropriately  ?

So I don't exactly remember which method works with -inadequate- survival strategies, who came up with the concept ect, but if you want to find out more I will go and look for the stuff. Maybe it'll make more sens then.