/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9748746
*sniff* *sniff* i smell a large pile of bait.

>>9748746

>>9748746

>>9748762
Not bait
>>9748765
Not cringy
>>9748766
The large primarchs are nothing but bigger targets for even modern weaponry, let alone future technology. You do not want to be larger in modern or future combat.

Already had this thread

>Vore fetish becomes reality
I 100% support this idea OP

>>9748746
[insert joke about the size of OP's mother/wife here]

>>9748778
They deleted it for some reason, before we could seriously discuss it.

>>9748746
Then why is it that natural selection made women the size that they are?

>>9748793
It was either more beneficial or just not a hindrance in the past environments. The modern and future environments have different pressures.

>>9748746
I'm 6'4 what are you going to do for me? Cut my legs off at the knee?

>>9748746
>tfw my gf is taller than I am by about 5 inches
It's okay I guess. Though the sex is fun.

>>9748746
i want >>>/d/ to stick to their containment board

>>>/d/

>>9748881
>>9748886
It's evolution, it has every reason to be here.

>long pregnancy
>super vulnerable during pregnant
>need protection

>>9748930
Wouldn't be necessary if they were large and strong, and small males are no worse at fighting than large ones, especially with spears.
Besides, I'm talking about now and in the future. There is absolutely no reason for males to be large anymore. It's an inferior design.

>>9748936
Without any training, experience or advantages such as poison, smaller people are weaker and at the disadvantage.

Anyways, women today are still very weak and vulnerable while pregnant.

Also what the OP is ignoring is a hormone called estrogen

>>9748981
What about estrogen?

>>9748811
The modern and future environment's don't have pressures anymore. Women in general are less useful than men so if you're trying to be utilitarian the option is clearly to just create a race of femboys grown in artificial wombs.

>>9748936
>small males are no worse at fighting than large ones
HAHAHAHAHAHA
COPE MANLET

>>9749053
modern combat, space, and food favor small stature. I don't want femboys I don't want males or females to go anywhere.
>>9749056
It's not a cope its true, especially with weapons and ESPECIALLY with modern firearms. Large males are completely inferior.

if everyone is a manlet, no one is

>>9748746
>trying to justify his skyscraper slut fetish by being a complete retard

>>9749151
This isn't an argument. Nothing I've posited so far is wrong.

Putting aside the obvious fetish implications of this, I think you'd have to do a lot of work to the psychology of both genders to make this kind of sexual dimorphism healthy. If it was done right it might be beneficial to our post-industrial society, though. Our current evolutionary tendencies definitely aren't helping us out much these days.

>>9749180
I don't care to hide that yes, there are fetish implications here, but yea the rest of what you're saying is exactly what I'm thinking. The way we evolved simply does not jive with modern society and especially not what the future might be like. We gotta make the switch.

>>9749189
>The way we evolved simply does not jive with modern society and especially not what the future might be like. We gotta make the switch.
I think if large scale human genetic modification were to ever happen, it would be in connection to space exploration. As far as we can tell right now, sending a bunch of normal people on a years long journey to a hostile environment is unlikely to end well. A biological re-balance of gender roles might help give an isolated society stability over longer time scales. If you're already modifying people to live in microgravity or harsh radiation or strange atmospheres, why not change up the formula some more?

>>9749091
>especially with weapons
no
>ESPECIALLY with modern firearms.
marginal

>>9749218
Not him but being compact and muscular is pretty much ideal for large-scale combat, both in antiquity and modern day

see: Gurkhas

>>9749159
Nothing is right either. Human males evolved to be larger/taller on average than Human females. Chimpanzees and Binobos also evolved to have larger males. The effect of evolution on the relative size of males and females is varried as there are many species where males and females are the same size as well. You also hedge everything on reproduction which is retarded. The delusional fantasies you have about whether or not women are able to dominate men would eliminate rape and violence against women. It's about as likely that female-on-female violence would become the predominate form of violence against women as a by-product of your proposed genetic tinkering. It's also just about as likely that males will dominate women regardless of relative size and those who have proclivities towards violence and rape would do so anyways. You'd basically have to replace a woman with a man for most women to have the psychological state to be able to prevent rape and violence against them from a man.

Your delusion that reproductive organs needing to take up a lot of room should dictate relative size of men to woman is also retarded since most mammals, regardless of relative male-to-female size have evolved ways to cope with females being smaller than males for example, vice versa. Besides that, female mammals allow their bellies to enlarge and skin to stretch in order to house their enlarged uterus carrying their child.

Your fantasy about modern combat isn't necessarily true either. If anything, it does not affect anything in combat, whether modern or medieval, or classical. In fact, being smaller means you have less body mass, meaning you can carry less weight over longer periods of time. The average soldier in a combat in the US army is expected to be able to carry 80+ lbs/36 Kg of gear on his body. Being a little larger is better than being smaller in this case.

>>9749235
Many modern combat situations involve explosives, artillary, vehicles, etc. which often negate any conceivable (though likely absent) advantage that being small may possibly have. Being smaller doesn't really confer any advantages though. Even a very large person can minimized his exposed body area simply by getting behind some cover or getting into a prone position, etc. Many modern combat situations are decided by whether or not your side is the one with the technological advantage, or yours is the one that sprung the ambush. The size of the people involved does not fact into this. Training and good tactics/strategy determine much more than the size of the soldiers.

As far as taking up resources is concerned, that will only be a problem for the rare person who's over 6'7" who might need to eat 2,800 Calories per day rather than the average male who's 5'11" needing about 2,200 Calories per day to maintain themselves in everyday situations. It's not really a big deal. In fact it's minimized when considering reality over whatever thought experiments you could use. The amount of resources needed to compensate for this difference is relatively small and usually extremely cheap to compensate for especially with foods based on grains. The resource intake most people need in general is based more about their activities rather than their size. Size is a relatively small factor when compared to activity. The medieval laborer who on average is much shorter than the average person in Europe or North America, consumed around 3000-3500 calories per day while being much smaller on average than the modern person while the modern person usually doesn't need more than 2500 Calories per day to meet their needs.

The fact is that you're just sitting in your own ivory tower imagining things and believing they must be so because you imagined them. You have no basis for anything you need

>>9749224
>ideal for antiquity
>less reach
>shorter lunge distance
>less force in strikes
>unable to effectively wield larger arms
>less capability to use larger and higher poundage bows
>less carrying capacity
>ideal

>>9749249
>>less reach
doesn't matter when spears exist
>>shorter lunge distance
>>less force in strikes
irrelevant when fighting in formation, and formation fighting >>> disorganized fighting
>>unable to effectively wield larger arms
huge axes and swords are terrible in warfare, and manlets can use polearms just fine
>>less capability to use larger and higher poundage bows
most high power bows don't have a very long draw, so having short arms is irrelevant
>>less carrying capacity
perhaps, but a person with a small, stocky build will have more endurance when it comes to carrying weight, which is far more important than max carry while on campaign

Also being small is helpful when you're trying to ride a horse, and horses were the kings of the battlefield for most of history

>>9749053
>>98657150
yes men love to interpret anything through their fantasy of dominance and submission, but this is because they love to confuse dominance with being active and submission with being passive so that they delude themselves that they are not the weaker sex by being so active, whereas their activities turn out to be only making women comfy and make life harder for men.
Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.

>>9749053
>The modern and future environment's don't have pressures anymore.
That's where you're wrong kiddo

https://www.unz.com/jman/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html
https://futurism.com/genetic-idiocracy-genes-associated-with-high-education-are-becoming-rarer/

>>9749261
>doesn't matter when spears exist
Often people would switch to swords in heated battles since anything but the ideal Macedonian set-piece battles involved people getting into a range where spears are ineffective, especially in formations.
>irrelevant when fighting in formation, and formation fighting >>> disorganized fighting
Body size has nothing to do with this.
>huge axes and swords are terrible in warfare, and manlets can use polearms just fine
It depends on the groups who are warring with each-other. During the Roman post-Marian period, the Romans only recruited the tallest people they could find, usually blacksmiths and hunters. During this time they were very tall, around 5'7"/ 175 cm tall. Some of the germanics/celts who the Romans had trouble with were much taller often needing to resort to technical and tactical prowess in order to get an advantage back.
>most high power bows don't have a very long draw, so having short arms is irrelevant
Try actually using a bow. Start with a 25 lb bow then switch to a 35/45 lb or even 50+ lb bow and compare. Use a recurve bow or a long-bow (the types of bows used in the classical/medieval periods). It is much easier to use a 25 lb bow. The English longbow's draw weight was 90–110 pounds. The mongol bow during the mongol empire had a draw weight of around 100 to 160 lbs. Strength correlates to muscle mass and muscle mass correlates to body size.
>perhaps, but a person with a small, stocky build will have more endurance when it comes to carrying weight, which is far more important than max carry while on campaign
There is no reason to believe this. Many athletes are rather heavy, tall, and have the ability to play sports for several hours. You have very unrealistic views of physical capacity and body size.

>Also being small is helpful when you're trying to ride a horse, and horses were the kings of the battlefield for most of history
This is true if you're a jockey on a race horse, but not necessarily true in combat. Being a good rider is more valuable and size doesn't do anything for you in this regard. Unlike you, I have grown up around horses and have known people who ride horses. You really don't know what you're talking about here. Besides, there are large horse such as warm-bloods who are bread to be big and strong.

As far as horses being the kings of the battlefield, this really depends on the time and place. Place is extremely important. Infantry have actually dominated warfare for most of European history. Infantry dominated warfare in most of Chinese and Japanese history. Cavalry dominated the steppes, near east, and North African where the terrain allowed for that dominance. Horsemen most of the time were used for skirmishes, flanking, and maybe some raiding, while in Europe, only dominated a time period of no more than 600 years. Even so, this dominance is tentative since most of the time people would try to avoid battles because they were expensive and try to put themselves in situations where they could use their army most effectively.

>>9749159
>Nothing I've posited so far is wrong.

>giving women more power than men is good
are you crazy

>>9748746
>tfw 5'4 with gf that is 5 inches taller than me
>I am leading the next step in human evolution with my efficient design
>lanklets still coping about no gf
feels good man

>We should engineer women to be larger than men
aren't you a manlet already OP?

>>9749214
smaller is better for space travel as well. Take up less space on the ship and need less food on it. But desu I think space travel is something that would be done by machines, not biological organisms.

>>9748746
If the change is inevitable why should we do anything? Go masturbate in another board.
Why not just get rid of women all together and start using artificial wombs?

>>9749876
>If the change is inevitable why should we do anything?
I mean, using genemodding techniques to do this is inevitable.
>Why not just get rid of women all together and start using artificial wombs?
Because that's evil and I'm not a fag

I'll take what OP is having.

>>9748746
>our reproductive organs don't need to take up a lot of room,
Speak for yourself.

>>9750561
kek'd

>>9748746
>We should engineer women to be larger than men
Only if I can parasitically attach myself to her for constant fertilization.

Weirdo with a giant fetish

>>9748746
I'm okay with this. Hopefully it would lead to matriarchy.

>>9750612
you're weird for not liking amazon women
>>9750637
Why hopefully? are you a woman?

>>9750638
>are you a woman?
Only in the presence of huge cocks.

>build me a woman
>make her ten feet tall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M30sGud9Yc4

>>9750953
>>9750961
>>9750974
>>9750978
>>9750991
dude you're going to get my thread deleted. Although I see you agree with me, nice.

>>9750993
>get my thread deleted
Why?

>t. Jewish

>>9751000
Because you're spamming images of amazons instead of discussing the science and effects of this idea.
Do you even think we should do it? Why or why not?

>>9751003
I'm not Jewish, why would you assume that?

>>9751005
>spamming images
Posting images on an image_board is spamming?

>>9748746

You are wrong. Everyone should be smaller. That is what Thanatos should have done instead of killing half the people to "save resources." And because my fetish is better then yours.

[math] \textbf{WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?} [/math]

>>9751049
Yea, desu that would probably be better but I want amazons
>>9751077
I already learned which is why i'm posting this. It's not my fault large males are obsolete, my guy.

>>9748746
>trying to convince /sci/ that the world would be better if we drastically altered the course of the human race to fit your very niche fetish
You've lost touch with reality.

>>9751167
On the contrary, anon. I'm more attuned with reality than most people.

>>9748936
>what is sexual selection

>>9751286
What about it?

>>9749151
So I am making a PowerPoint presentation for my anthropology class and I would like to use this image, if the Creator is still in this thread would you like to leave your contact info so I can cite you properly?

>>9748765
>the small size is better for kung fu

>>9751342
no one claimed that

>>9748765
I have been conditioned. I cant see this image without breaking into fits of laughter

>>9748746
Women destroy every society which allows them to rule. It is their empathy that makes them perfect for motherhood and horrible for acting rationally under a conflict of interest.

>>9748746
>>9750993
>>9751005

If you want to discuss the science and effects, well then you should know (regardless of my opinion on your idea) there are some critical biological issues.

You'd likely run into problems with heart size, while the human heart is a fantastic piece of biological machinery, it doesn't scale indefinitely. And after certain heights it has serious problems maintaining blood pressure, especially during strenuous activity.

From heart to blood, Height also seems to correlate with an increase in blood clots. The exact mechanism isn't identified, but it could be that at the extremities blood is be moving slower making it easier for the clots to form.

Alongside the heart, the spine doesn't do too well scaling up. Even at 'normal' sizes the average person will encounter spinal problems later in life.

Finally, being larger means more cells, and more cells statistically increases your chances one of them becoming a malignant cancer.

There are plenty of articles on gigantism. But Humans are the height they are for good reasons.
Currently gigantism is considered an illness due to the negative effects it has on life expectancy and quality.
https://www.healthline.com/health/gigantism

>>9751299
>what is biology, duh

>>9749261
>>>less reach
>>doesn't matter when spears exist
>taller people don't use longer spears

>>9751964
What I meant is, sexual selection is meaningless with genemodding
>>9751993
LMAO they knew what was going to happen even back then

>>9751823
These could be a problem, but it's not like tall people/women don't exist, it's just that they won't live as long.

>>9752198
However it is important that women live longer, the grandparents aren't just a social thing, they're of biological importance too.
If you really wanted to pull this off, it would probably be easier to shrink men down to the 5'5 range and push women to around 6'2. You'd have half a foot difference and everyone would still be in healthy ranges.

>>9748746
But who will protect the women while they are pregnant and not very useful? Their manlet army?

>>9752960
>protection in this era
dumb meme.
but to answer you: The "manlet army" is more than capable if needed to protect, especially with firearms where they have an advantage.