In Darwinism "survival of the fittest" denotes "biological fitness" which is determined by how many progeny you have...

in Darwinism "survival of the fittest" denotes "biological fitness" which is determined by how many progeny you have survive to adulthood by how many mothers,
So if Tyrone had 11 children by 7 different mothers he would be considered "fit" regardless of how successful he was in business, conflict or bodily health/strength.

how many children by how many different mothers do you have Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
cs.montana.edu/webworks/projects/stevesbook/contents/chapters/chapter002/section004/blue/page003.html
nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory,
youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
youtube.com/watch?v=ZGUTHCQQQtM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yet how many of those will die in the upcoming holocaust?

>upcoming holocaust?

I was trying to start a reasonable thread

>speculative fiction -> /lit/

Nah man, it means 'Fittest; in the Victorian sense of the word- as in 'Fit for the job.'

Example- a snake is'fit' to slither into a tiny opening, whereas a lizard is not.

There's been plenty of genocides throughout history, why is an extra one so improbable?
No current year meme pls

>Darwinism "survival of the fittest" denotes "biological fitness

The preposition is wrong

Darwin never mentioned 'survival of the fittest.'

From a short-term point of view you are right. But in today's world, technology makes it very easy to kill many people without much effort. All the primitive natural selection in Africa won't matter when we nuke the place, or release a virus specifically targeted to eradicate niggers.


Our technology was a game changer for the mechanism of survival of the fittest. It is well within our ability to override natural selection with an artificial selection, if we wished to do so.

nope...its biological fitness

You mean the first holocaust?

i think selective pressures is more appropriate, which for someone with 9 kids and little no real income, bodes poorly for periods of outward pressures. how the fuck is some dude going to feed 13 people when the check isn't there, the store is empty, and his greatest skill is rolling phat blunts?

natural selection comes into play later, when his neighbors defeat him in battle, and steal his crop of dank nugs, leaving his clutch more vulnerable to outward pressures

It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.

It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, but rather, that which is most adaptable to change.

But we're not niggers, we're trying to live like humans for the good of the children, which means only one wife.

They're more akin to insects and arachnids that eat their young when they get hungry

>>not niggers
>> french flag

i think it's pretty evident that northern europeans are the most adaptable. look up "countries colonized by europe." there are like 3 left with little or no colonization/occupation

If you're saying we should end welfare because it's a dysagenic nightmare factory, I agree.

it doesn't denote "biological fitness"

i should have made an exception for china, currently colonizing canada, aus and west africa. it's a lot of catch-up to do but they are giving it a good start

>he still believes in "Muh evolusion"

Darwinism doesn't come close to esoteric kekism andbgods reality

We meme magicians nigger who operate on a bigger scale than your MUH dick mind can comprehend

Go suck your own dick if you love hedonistic pleasure and dead future children so much

Yes. Thats a valid reproduction stategy, called r that is made by animal such as insects and rodents. It is usually chacterized by more offspring, less intelligence, shorter lives and no care for offspring resulting in high mortality rates.

If some other man, lets say, John, has only two or three children with one woman, but is successful, and can make sure all his children are educated, healthy and are successfull themselves. Thats also a valid stategy called K strategy, used by elephants and whales, usually chacterized by less numerous offspring but with more investiment from the parents, more lintelligence, longer lifes and low mortallity rates.

This theory is a bit old, and of course, not all animals fit nicelly in K or r.
But is intreresting nonetheless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
cs.montana.edu/webworks/projects/stevesbook/contents/chapters/chapter002/section004/blue/page003.html

yes it does

none you fucking degenerate larper.
you 'day of the rope' losers are worse than christcucks saying 'god will punish you in the afterlife!'
you are a pathetic virgin loser

jesus was a non-white socialist and radical egalitarian.

no thanks

>So if Tyrone had 11 children by 7 different mothers he would be considered "fit"

How many of those kids will leave school with no qualifications, commit crime, go to prison, die in the electric chair?

applying that to humans is probably controversial but i'd agree with a lot of it.

the first world= fewer kids, longer lives. prosperity in general =fewer kids, longer lives

based OP

Natural selection isn't positive or negative. It is completely amoral, without regard for human notions of desirability.

The only thing that is regarded as desirable in the process of natural selection is the transmission of genes. nothing else.
In this view, a drug addicted negro on welfare with 8 kids with three different mothers is doing better than a rich, stable white couple who live the "childfree" life..

Seen in this light, social engineering, artificial society and over-intellectualism are dulling out our instincts, our desire for progeny.

a good example of this is the sterotypical cat lady. She fucks around, does not couple with a man, her uterus shrivels, and she artificially relieves her mother instinct by stimulating/abusing her instinct and hormones by taking care of pets, instead of children, as originally "designed" through natural selection, her biological urge to give birth is put to sleep by social conventions (overpopulation meme, feminism,...) and she becomes barren, she does not reproduce and as such her life is worthless from a natural point of view.
This is obviously not good for modern society, where prole negroes and islamic polygamists will outnumber decent, smart people, but the law of nature does not care for society. In the end, production of offspring is the only thing that matters.

So this is important for society as well; demographics is destiny

If there is no change, the stronger and more intelliget can survive.

Evolutionary fitness changes in accord to the environment. Some enviroments may select for intelligence or streght. Only if they change suddenly, and with soem frequency, the adaptable has an edge. Still, the three kinds of organism can survive in differnt niches in the same area.

who gives a fuck so long as they go on to have their own children.

Like chimpansees or wolves, humans are not solitary animals. we have a family, a tribe, consisting of people who share enough of the same genes.
Within this in-group it is not good to kill, steal, or sow discord, because we have grown through natural selection to live in groups where we rely on each other for survival. In this group solidarity, common defense and peaceful mating are good things. In other words, we have a tribe, an “in-group”

toward the outgroup however, all things go. There is no such thing as compassion or altruism in nature. Even within the in-group these are seen as a mutual benefit, not as an ethical ideal

nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/

this is a very good, though lengthy article about noted biologist and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith concerning the role of groups, communities, tribes, and how they formed throughout history, what their evolutionary purpose is, and how they still are at work today.

No whites should follow a Semitic god. He only exists for the sandniggers and the kikes to fight over what to call him.

>t. autist

>I don't like it so it's not real

Japan, which was able to modernize quickly. But then it went to war with the US and got occupied, but the US is not northern Europe.

But the ambient can change, and now Norhtern Europe is full of cucks and has not much influence on the world, where the US and Asia are more powerful today. But since lefties are cucks and pro-abortion, they are diminishing their own evolutionary fitness. Soon they will be extinct, and a new people will rule Europe. Lets hope it is not Muslims

The point is how long will tyrone's line survive, if 90% of every following generation is gunned down/receives the death penalty.
idiot.

each one of those children is capable of having 11 more children and probably would.

and 9/11 children will end up dead by 20.

You have to be really fucking stupid and simple-minded to be unable to see that doing things that niggers do does not make you a nigger. Niggers eat and drink every day, so do we, but we do it in a more refined way. There is absolutely no reason that white men shouldn't be having more than 6 children minimum with one woman whom they met as a teenager and married as virgins. Until we all get with this standard, the world will continue to die, that's objectively true,

>90% of every following generation is gunned down/receives the death penalty.

who gives a fuck so long as they survive long enough to procreate.

You don't seem like the type of person who should be putting themselves on a pedestal over niggers based on educational achievements.

the average life expectancy in ,for example, america of a black male is 71.8 years

>Doesn't understand the impact of generational degradation
>questioning someone else's intelligence
Off yourself.

According too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory, there are two types of animals. One, r type, has many different offspring that are often weaker and smaller, but since there are so many they thrive. Think of rabbits and how often they reproduce, but aren't very intelligent or strong.

Then there is k type. k type are organisms that dont reproduce very often and invest in the offspring they do have so that they will be more acclimated to their environment. r type organisms simply breed away until theres enough of them to survive. Look at Africa, and how its population has skyrocketed. Then look at Europe, Japan, America, and see how their birth rates have faltered. The stability needed to invest in our offspring has been done away with thanks to (((Nation Wreckers))) coming along. Since its more chaotic, r type thrives.

In short, organisms that breed more often have less survivability (and the attributes associated with survivability) whereas k organisms breed less but have the right attributes to survive (things like intelligence, strength, etc.)

Thats my point in
it is "fit", but most offspring will die.

Only because of politics, and if whites were only a true minority.
E.G, in Africa, Whites dominated societed despite smaller numbers, but due to more intelligence and investment in offspring (and society), divided the black tribes, enslaved them, and could very well have destryed them. So K can win against r.

But with today leftist politics, whites cannot use their might to controll blacks and muslims in their own countries, nor they have sufficient quality offspring. Few strong offspring is a valid strategy. Beta sons, putting a son in a dress or people doing womens studies and being uselles to society is of couse, evolutionary suicide.
Since whites lost their K stategy in many places, they are being overwhelmed by r blacks and muslims. Where whites kept investing in their fewer offspring, the imigrants are less of a politcial force.

>evolution
>real

>DAMAGE CONTROL

get fucked christfag. you're lowering the tone.

Japan no problem with r peoples by simply no letting so much immigrants in. So K remains stable, because they are using they intelligence / political resources to keep the competitors away from their land and ecnomic infrastructure.

The Europeans ar not only allowing the r types to come, they even give them welfare. If the r types where in Europe, but had no welfare nor left politics on their side, they would be forced to 'behave', eighter dying by high numbers or changing to an K strategy. Or they would be eliminated.

As China got overpopulated, it also adopted a K strategy. As quality of life is not so good yet, their are poorer than westerners, but as a nation their are strong. Having technoloy / industry / recources, the Chinese are recolonizing Africa today, despite black Africans outnumbering the Chinese in Africa. Since China does not care about blacks, most Chinese in Africa will get rich while Africans will remain in misery.

K beats r. The problem is the white eurpoeans are not K anymore.

There are more chickens on Earth than there are humans.

Evolution is more about the failure of the unfit rather than the survival of the fit.

>If there is no change,

What are you even talking about? There is always change, why raise a hypothesis like this, or use it as premise of your conclusion?

No fitness is defined in biology is being the fittest to survive in your environment. Currently there are about two environments people live in, one is the in the concrete high rises and the other is everywhere else. I would says humans have diverged into two different secs. Humans really aren't the same as animals or plants that thrive in a lead soil environment, if anything humans are kind of taking two different paths

Welfare doesn't occur in nature, dipshit.

Neither Tyrone nor Lakeisha could afford to shit out ten kids before they had gibs. Not coincidentally, the 1940s and 50s were the whitest periods of American history.

survival in biology is determined by successful procreation of a species in a given environment.

What about pugs? Following your logic they are fit since they are so widespread, but we all know that's a crock of shit and they are a genetic nightmare. You can't argue that it doesn't count due to 'unnatural' conditions like human meddling because humans also act under 'unnatural' conditions.

Basically survival of the fittest is a good idea for animals but for people it just doesn't pan out.

who said anything about welfare?

I'm sure tyrone's offspring can make ends meet by robbing rich folk.....who they could also beat in a physical altercation.

>but muh gunz

K types are more susceptible to extinction.
R types don't prosper and live short, perilous lives.

Fitness includes how many of these offspring go on to reproduce themselves, as well as how many offspring your siblings, cousins and parents have. If all of Tyrone's children end up dead or in prison then Tyrone's fitness is shit compare to someone who has 2 or three kids who then go on to have 2 or 3 kids each etc.

see

Biologist reporting in. Short answer: Yes. Evolution is all about gene prevalence in the population. It doesn't matter how you get your genes into the future gene pool, just that you do and at greater numbers than your conspecifics.

This is the problem with civilization. It alters the environment and so alters what is fit. We have essentially created an artificial environment where weak and evil men are more fit than honorable ones. Consider sociopathy. In the current anonymous environment being a sociopath can increase your fitness at little cost, but in the close knit communities of the past it would likely get you exiled in the long run.

Just dont do what you nonSTEM tards always do and make biology into a system of valuation. Values do and should exist on a higher plane than empirical science. Don't lower yourself to the same level as fucking bacteria.

>cut welfare
>nigger life expectancy drop to 20 years
lmao

The shitty ass welfare state skews Darwinism.

>Darwinism "survival of the fittest"

DARWIN NEVER SAYS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" -- EVER.

STOP FUCKING PARROTING THAT IT WAS AN IDEA IN DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.

see
welfare and social insurances are literally conservative political policies.

Yeah but Tyrones kids will never survive past 21. Probably end up in jail or shot.

This is pseudoscience. There's no true criteria for r and k selection theory and it isn't taken seriously by anyone worth listening to. It's just an oversimplified way of explaining things for people who are too lazy to study things on a case by case basis.

t. Animal behaviourist

Japan colonized Iberia, never forget!

Summed up in video form:
youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

and think of it this way:

would tyrone, his 3 babbies mammas, and his 17 children even be alive if not for free modern medicine provided by the welfare state? that has been happening since before 'obamacare' was even a phrase.

Firstly you filthy biologically illiterate cuckold degenerare.


The survival of the fittest referes not to how many children you have, but your power, your "fitness" referss to your claws, tusks, horns, teeth and agression to rip and dominate other rival species for territoy and mates.

Cockroaches arent as fit as lions as they are a prey species, yet man is the most fit of all animals as he adapts swifty to any climate and constantly makes war against his rival species (other top predators, wolves, lions, bears) until he reigns dominant.

Your kind that "beleive the earth is flat" dont have the biological understanding of a fifth grader and have no business speaking on subjects of the life sciences.

Furthermore, the term "survival of the fittest" refers ONLY to a species ability to propagate advanageous secondary sexual and heritable characteristics (genes) that are selected for by competition, enviromental selection, and mating. That is all.

The lion has its claws because claws kill and the boar has his turks sharp because he has to out compete his rivals in the endless struggle for life and mates.

Finally the white man is the most sucessful createure ever, he has out competed rival human species and exterminated them for lands, enslaved millions to this day, and rules stop the greatest climates in the world.

Don't let the jewish numbes game fool you, the Aryan race will always be number one.

Life is struggle, lieben ist kampf.

>flat earth
>jewish god
>no evolution
>no race

Christcuckolds are always traitors to their race and worship their jewish masters.

Biology does imply a system of values, there is no "higher," that's a spook.

Good news: people have been misinterpreting it. Niggers are lazy and uncooperative and eternally at war with each other which is why it's so easy for a warlike white state to BTFO them. Group cohesion under civilization is way more fit than random high-T low-IQ chimping.

>Sup Forums champions Social Darwinism spook
>is filled with literal manchildren who can't even get laid

Has there ever been a species which actively practiced eugenics themselves?
Let's say an insect has like 5000 eggs and begins inspecting the cocoon/fetus detecting for abnormalities, diseases, gene code. They kill 4990 and end up with just 10 offsprings, the most carefully selected which have the most potential for growth, power, resistance, speed, intelligence/cognitive abilities.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZGUTHCQQQtM

Correct. People often misconstrue "survival of the fittest" with Social Darwinism which is not even close to the same thing.

Yes

This argument is technically correct, but it's also meaningless to those concerned with anything beyond Darwinian success. I'd rather have 3-4 kids that I can take care of and provide for than 6-8 that I can't, and who'd end up living in squalor, because I love my children and want them to lead happy and productive lives. Sure, I'd be considered less successful from a Darwinian standpoint, but who actually cares about that shit? Is that your top priority in life? You could technically extend that logic to say that anything other than eating and fucking is a waste of time.

R vs K.

The Tyronian system, i.e no family structure, promiscuity, incessant conflict between males for access to females, between females for males, and between males and females, is only practicable in an environment of abundant resources, aka an "abundance economy". Abundance economies lead to matriarchal social systems, which are chaotic and violent.

When that environment changes, they and their progeny die in droves, as they are not adapted for a scarcity economy. Scarcity economies lead to patriarchal social systems for survival.

A good example is Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina: the illusion of abundant resources and the lack of forethought was shattered by nature. Few were prepared to survive, few were prepared to flee. The result was mass calamity and death.

The Tyronian method relies upon gibs. Inevitably, one day, the gibs will run out.

>t. A-level student

"Fitness" is a relative term that operates on different scales and refers to different things. If we talk about individual fitness measured by the frequency of a particular allele of a particular individual in the next generation, then yes, Tyrone might be fitter than a white person with only 1 child after 1 generation. However, if Tyrone's 11 children kill eachother for inheritance money, get jailed for life for armed robery, take drugs that eventually mess with their gametes and basically whipe themselves out while a white person's child carefully takes care of themselves and has many generations of healthy offspring that will continue long into the future, then on the scale of 10 generations the white person is going to have higher fitness.

No, Tyrone survives in modern world on white man's welfare.