Avatar
Mongoose of the Chalice
af1042b74b8900c81cfd8644112a202379c21f7e3945739d3300a2f5341094aa
Find my shit at amerikaner and exodus amerikanus

shadow fox fluff gang, we love freeing fawkses.

(this post was sponsored by the shadow fluff)

nostr:npub18q24kaxv95cp6h9ercw3s33xcfgjq90d5ufj4mxra5hmsrfzpklsfygnkg nostr:npub16m7n8agwsdt3yhyfdmjrpvsw9w4dxgh9676w5z8jnppva65q7dgqw9f74w nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk nostr:npub1wrn7rqj4ugvly7ezhf77p8l04rp3ccyk8pj804ukae349j9gkxaqtfqdxf nostr:npub13xhpusxfq9frzvjh896z4ukd2s8dxthqqq5py7fgu9qrxfr8f09sqe9x2y

Sure but it still stands for birds, which are the best off hand example of a heavily k species with high mortality. They also are the most prone to fischerian runaway issues and are the primary and best example of the phenomenon. Possums can be another good example.

The guppy experiment was merely about the 'good genes' hypothesis as guppies are easily bred in captivity and mature quickly, they are optimal for this sort of study. Its also worth nothing that the concept being studied is overbroad and generally applicable to all forms of sexual reproduction, not just animals leaning more r.

nostr:npub18q24kaxv95cp6h9ercw3s33xcfgjq90d5ufj4mxra5hmsrfzpklsfygnkg nostr:npub16m7n8agwsdt3yhyfdmjrpvsw9w4dxgh9676w5z8jnppva65q7dgqw9f74w nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk nostr:npub1wrn7rqj4ugvly7ezhf77p8l04rp3ccyk8pj804ukae349j9gkxaqtfqdxf nostr:npub13xhpusxfq9frzvjh896z4ukd2s8dxthqqq5py7fgu9qrxfr8f09sqe9x2y

Survival is the #1 indicator of passing down genes, sexual selection in most species is merely a slight limiting factor.

A greater percentage of the sea turtle population is lost via death than pool sexual selection. Same for birds that mate for life.

To analogize nature to our current circumstances you would need to look at selection models based on sexual selection only, which is why I brought up the guppy study, as it strengthens the fischerian runaway hypothesis and weakens/disproves the "good genes" hypothesis. To prove your point you'd need to show that sexual selection universally increases survivability, which I don't think is possible, ergo I disagree with your prognosis that our current fischerian runaway in humans is positive or good.

You also don't account for birth control in any of your arguments, which is an atrocious blind spot, as sex access =/= childbirth.

nostr:npub18q24kaxv95cp6h9ercw3s33xcfgjq90d5ufj4mxra5hmsrfzpklsfygnkg nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk

You're understanding of fitness is very flawed and operates on a series of unexamined assumptions.

Lets unpack them:

1. fitness is only about production of offspring - K types are less fit and whites are inferior to niggers per this axiom

2. female selection correlates 1:1 with fitness - empirically no, it only selects for things women find attractive, not necessarily what makes an animal more fit. You may have a point when women add a spatial reasoning filter to hinge

3. natural selection is the same as sexual selection - breeding and attracting a mate are only 1 portion of the natural selection process. The optimum man for modern combat is not optimal for sexual selection by women, however neither of these 'pressures' is more or less valid than the other

4. female sexual selection is primarily valid as means of selection for fitness - demonstrably false, primarily through the phenomenon of fischerian runaway