/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13923801]

Are you a bad person if you have bad genes?

[Anonymous No.13923815]

>>13923801
Why are "bad genes" always characterized by looks? Your brain is your most important organ, and its health and quality are primarily genetic as well

[Anonymous No.13923829]

>>13923815
I'm talking about both

[Anonymous No.13923836]

>>13923815

[Anonymous No.13924144]

>>13923815
Good looks predict good brain

[Anonymous No.13924399]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13924416]

>>13923801
>Probably carries a mutation which increases likelihood of certain tumors tenfold.
>Has cardiovascular issues
>Prone to diabetes and ulcers
>Low IQ
>appears to be handsome in his 20s.
Yeah, good genes...

[Anonymous No.13924436]

>>13924144
They aren't synonymous though. Einstein wasn't particularly attractive

[Anonymous No.13924991]

>>13923815
thats not what evolutionary psychology implies. girls choose looks. therefore its better

[Anonymous No.13925026]

>>13923801
you're a bad person for posting on this trash board and so am I

[Anonymous No.13925047]

>>13923829
they are scarcely related
>>13923836
good for the young lad, taking care of body and spirit
>>13924144
there are tons of goblins and virgins whose contributions to human knowledge directly lead to your existence and ability to post on this board. if you ever read any books, you'd be aware of them
>>13924991
>tfw too low iq to grasp even evopsych

[Anonymous No.13925053]

>>13924991
Who cares. We're no longer subjects to evolution since we're overpopulated. Statistically speaking it doesn't matter. You might not reproduce with the one you want but chances are you'll reproduce with someone else. Even ugly people get to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.13925273]

>>13923801
only if you are absorbed by materialism.

[Anonymous No.13925300]

>>13923836
Based Balding Manlet Math Tutor

[Anonymous No.13925317]

>>13924144
I've always heard people say this on here but I'm pretty sure it only predicts intelligence up to a certain "healthy" point - the legitimately deformed are probably not very intelligent, for example, and the beautiful are also probably not dumb but at least average. However I doubt it predicts super-intelligence, the most intelligent people never seem to be very attractive from what I've seen, not that they're strictly ugly either.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13925336]

>>13923801
Read an article about a woman who didn’t feel pain. She went her whole life thinking childbirth wasn’t such a big deal. She has some weird mutation in her genes

[Anonymous No.13925351]

>>13925336
cool

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13925363]

Point is; what the hell is a “bad gene”?
Some people wish they were born another sex or species even.

[Anonymous No.13925376]

>>13924991
There were 3 avenues to secure mates, for males. The first, obviously, was rape. The other two, female selected, include, as you noted, "looks." This avenue was far less common than rape and the last avenue, which is the most common: USEFULNESS. The man who knew the most, hunted the best, led the tribe to success, etc. was desirable.

If you can't be handsome, be handy - or a rapist.

[Anonymous No.13925377]

>>13925363
Depends on your framework of value but biologically speaking, any gene that is counterproductive to your reproductive success. We can then extrapolate and add corollaries, for example we can prize genes that don't directly lead to reproductive success (say, higher intelligence as opposed to serviceable intelligence) and may even temporarily hinder reproductive success (again, higher intelligence) but the in the long run has a high chance of setting the organism or its descendants up in powerful positions in the grand scheme.
Of course once we truly begin fucking with our genes we will blow this whole paradigm wide open.

[Anonymous No.13925384]

>>13925363
I thought we told you to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.13925422]

>>13925363
To add, if a person has a "wish" or "desire" that itself is counterproductive to their reproductive success, and we can conclude that this desire is influenced or caused by a gene, that would then be a bad gene.
If there were a gay gene for example it is a "bad gene", because it is counterproductive to reproductive success to be gay. Such a gene seeks its own destruction.

[Anonymous No.13925453]

>>13923801
The true, good, and beautiful correlate with eachother but arent the same thing.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13925465]

>>13925422
>Gene determinism
I donno. I mean as far as the gene does determine its function. Other factors could cause the human gene to desire to be a cartoon German shepherd, or anonymous shitposter.

And this “reproductive” clause is a little iffy.
So if a person is perfectly happy not being reproductive, that’s a bad gene?
I just call into question the subjective nature of the “bad gene”

[Anonymous No.13925472]

>>13924991
Pretty sure the good genes theory has been debunked for facial attractiveness.

[Anonymous No.13925491]

>>13925465
Gene determinism is scientifically more solidly supported than some scientific notion of free will, which at this point seems impossible. We already know that genes steeply incline individuals towards particular behaviors. Not much of a stretch to imagine that the environment does the rest.
>And this “reproductive” clause is a little iffy.
Based on what? It determines the chances of the gene itself continuing to propagate itself and thereby continuing to exist. What is more solid than that?
>So if a person is perfectly happy not being reproductive, that’s a bad gene?
>le happiness meme
Biologically speaking, yes, its a bad gene. If someone is ""happy"" (what does this even mean objectively, how can it really be determined if the individual in question is really happy or is just lying both to the observer and themselves in a sad attempt to justify their own existence, moreover how can this be quantified, moreover what is its value) and has no offspring, and another individual is miserable but has so many descendants that their genes end up propagating eventually to all of humanity, then the first individual is a biological failure and the second is a raging success.
>I just call into question the subjective nature of the “bad gene”
As I said earlier, it depends on what framework is chosen. But the postmodernist notion that all arbitrary frameworks are equal to each other in supposed value is retarded, and I suspect this very notion is lurking behind your post.

[Anonymous No.13925508]

well in the future everyone will be a dumbass.
But theyll be beautiful dumbasses.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13925573]

>>13925491
>Not much of a stretch to imagine that the environment does the rest.
And there’s the hole in gene determinism
(Despite the title of this book, it’s more making a case for compatibalism, but nm that)
>Based on what?
On my will. My happiness. I choose to propagate mimetically and am quite content. I’m good for I have found my good. (Certainly no antinatalist)
>Biologically speaking, yes, its a bad gene
Says you and your funny criteria. Ada Lovelace shouldn’t have ever had children. She had no mind to tend to them and their births sent her body to a an early grave.
And it’s funny how you buy into hard determinism but not this “postmodernist notion” of subjectivity

>>13925508
They’re being poisoned and made austistic now.

[Anonymous No.13925589]

>>13923815
Because we live in a society

[Anonymous No.13925684]

>>13925573
Make an argument instead of posting a book.
>On my will. My happiness. I choose to propagate mimetically and am quite content. I’m good for I have found my good.
Good for you, but we are talking about different systems of value in comparison to each other and not about arbitrary personal assignation. How can I actually verify that you are legitimately happy, or how can even you? You can't. You're designed to believe that you are happy in order to justify your own existence, ironically this and what you call "will" are simply products of your biology which then you then paradoxically use to invalidate a biological framework without your own personal schematic in order to live.
Not only is there no scientific proof of free will, there is not even a plausible scientific BASIS for free will.
>Says you and your funny criteria. Ada Lovelace shouldn’t have ever had children. She had no mind to tend to them and their births sent her body to a an early grave.
Why is any of that bad? According to the biological framework of value if those kids ended up having kids of their own then its over, Ada "won" despite dying, which she would have anyway (there's the crux). Even if they didn't, she still got farther than someone who never had children.
>And it’s funny how you buy into hard determinism but not this “postmodernist notion” of subjectivity
One is scientific and the other is naive ideological babble.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13925910]

>>13925684
I thought I made clear the book is only slightly related. Look into it or don’t. It’s an image board and I like images
>we are talking about different systems of value in comparison to each other
Yes, and one ought to be sure that your imperatives aren’t better than anyone else’s
Trust me, and not your gut instincts or intuition or your best friend who swears he knows better. Trust Me to know about my emotional state.
>...there no scientific proof of free will, there is not even...
Now I refer you to the book
>One is scientific
The other is subjectivity

[Anonymous No.13925999]

>>13925684
>According to the biological framework of value if those kids ended up having kids of their own then its over, Ada "won" despite dying, which she would have anyway (there's the crux)

This kind of impartial “objectivity” belongs to the gaze that is only insofar as the it is host to one who has forfeited an intimate relationship with themselves and, through that, the world. You don’t have to be afraid that I don’t speak your language but let me be clear to you about this: any system that makes you a subject inside of it is inherently virtual and authoritative. I love that you know some much about genes but your unconscious teeter tottering over the nature of reality just go to show that your data is only as much worth to you as it is able to be the structure by which you come to live and orient yourself within. In no way does the study of genes suppose any kind of cosmology you suggest, but only presupposes it by its very aim in studying it, an aim you are only justified by through the obfuscation of description and opinion. The results of your system only go to show how absolutely ridiculous the structure itself is; that a woman would have won (the game? the system?) by dying if her children had reproduced further enough into the future. The cybernetic orgy inside your biology book is your nightmare, and I promise that the future that is happy will have become so by declining that invitation