An Understanding Of Kinesiology Versus Physical Health

[Super Polymath]

The thing is, no one could even tell he was likely to develop Parkinson's when he was in his prime, so that couldn't have been a factor in reproductive choices.  Also, physical prowess is not essential to reproductive success.  Observing barn cats, I have seen two dominant males fighting over a female while the more passive tom cat was getting busy with the female unnoticed.

 

Simply being nice can contribute to reproductive success.

 

 

This is an unbelievably ridiculous argument. 

 

For a start you have no evidence that boxers have more kids than anyone else, which is what you seem to be implying should be the case, nor that boxers are specially attractive to the opposite sex. 

 

Secondly, wealth does not increase the number of children people have but the reverse: birth rates in affluent countries are on the whole lower than in impoverished ones.

 

Thirdly, so-called "social Darwinism" does not rely for its validity or otherwise on biological Darwinism (by which I presume you mean the amplification of inherited traits possessed by organisms with greater reproductive success). Its logic does not depend on anything in biology, least of all on reproductive success.

 

Fourthly, social Darwinism has little to do with "capitalist/materialist economic structure". If you read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism, you may get a better idea of what social Darwinism is. However it is evidently a rather  imprecise term, which seems to be bandied about lazily by people who want to indicate disapproval of something or other in society that they consider due to a right-wing ideology.  

Let me hit on both of your arguments: they both share notion that Muhammad Ali's success did not contribute to the number offspring he'd produce.

 

That would true, in an RBE, however as a male, Ali's wealthiness & his children's subsequent wealthiness, does increase his likelihood of producing more offspring. This would not be true of he were a female. As a culture, in every religion that a nation chooses nurture, women are taught from an early age to favor security over sexual attraction. Whereas men are taught to favor sexual attraction over security (repelling would-be reverse gold-diggers) as it is expected of the man to be the breadwinner and to effectively control the gene pool via keeping the woman dependent on his wealth.

 

& I think I've explained exactly why this does not bode well for natural selection. I know it seems a little anticapitalistic, but it's true, for the most part. We're breeding sheep, to use Christian terminology. Now, of course this isn't always how it works out, it is certainly apparently nurtured by the powers that be. For example, circumcision: a ritualistic superstitious custom adopted by medicine, a monetary institution. Under the guise that we shouldn't have to be hassled enough to pull back our foreskins to clean ourselves, which is of course a ridiculous reason to legally mutilate apart of our children's bodies without consent. 

[Maine farmer]

Let me hit on both of your arguments: they both share notion that Muhammad Ali's success did not contribute to the number offspring he'd produce.

 

That would true, in an RBE, however as a male, Ali's wealthiness & his children's subsequent wealthiness, does increase his likelihood of producing more offspring. This would not be true of he were a female. As a culture, in every religion that a nation chooses nurture, women are taught from an early age to favor security over sexual attraction. Whereas men are taught to favor sexual attraction over security (repelling would-be reverse gold-diggers) as it is expected of the man to be the breadwinner and to effectively control the gene pool via keeping the woman dependent on his wealth.

 

& I think I've explained exactly why this does not bode well for natural selection. I know it seems a little anticapitalistic, but it's true, for the most part. We're breeding sheep, to use Christian terminology. Now, of course this isn't always how it works out, it is certainly apparently nurtured by the powers that be. For example, circumcision: a ritualistic superstitious custom adopted by medicine, a monetary institution. Under the guise that we shouldn't have to be hassled enough to pull back our foreskins to clean ourselves, which is of course a ridiculous reason to legally mutilate apart of our children's bodies without consent. 

Actually, my point was that Muhammad Ali's Parkinsons  had no bearing on either his boxing success or hi reproductive success.

 

You must realize that once a species develops to a point where they can capitalize on the benefits of cooperation that social skills begin to play a larger part in reproductive success.

 

There is more to survival than brute force.

[Super Polymath]

Actually, my point was that Muhammad Ali's Parkinsons  had no bearing on either his boxing success or hi reproductive success.

 

You must realize that once a species develops to a point where they can capitalize on the benefits of cooperation that social skills begin to play a larger part in reproductive success.

 

There is more to survival than brute force.

The problem is that it didn't hinder his fame & fortune, which will contribute to the # of offspring he'll have, not immediately, but his childrens' & grand childrens' inherited wealth will contribute to their reproductive success due to the flaws of our culture. & all of his heirs will have a genetic predisposition for Parkinson's.

 

Have you ever heard the term, "nice guys finish last"? Well that is how natural selection is supposed to work, but we use the left side of our brains from the time we can drive well past adulthood because our right is controlled by our left hemispheres, so using one's right foot on the pedal, or vehicles being set up that way, was for the purpose of civility & gaining pleasure from conformity. A Christian would say the meek will inherit the earth, a Satanist would might makes right. However, both God & Satan are euphemisms for causality, but causality is relative, & evolution eventually surpasses that relativistic limit.

[exchemist]

Actually, my point was that Muhammad Ali's Parkinsons  had no bearing on either his boxing success or hi reproductive success.

 

You must realize that once a species develops to a point where they can capitalize on the benefits of cooperation that social skills begin to play a larger part in reproductive success.

 

There is more to survival than brute force.

Quite. From a purely biological point of view, conditions that develop later in life should have little or no effect on reproductive success and would not be screened out by natural selection over time. 

 

In reality however, people who know they have inherited a condition like that do nowadays often choose carefully about having children of their own, whether fewer or by carrying out genetic testing on the foetus. 

 

But I don't know what SP is trying to argue here in any case. It all seems terribly muddled. 

[Super Polymath]

Quite. From a purely biological point of view, conditions that develop later in life should have little or no effect on reproductive success and would not be screened out by natural selection over time.

 

In reality however, people who know they have inherited a condition like that do nowadays often choose carefully about having children of their own, whether fewer or by carrying out genetic testing on the foetus.

 

But I don't know what SP is trying to argue here in any case. It all seems terribly muddled.

 

Parkinson's is hereditary, it manifested later in his life, as it does in boxers with the genetic predisposition.

 

The message I'm trying to get across, is that we have the ability to control our luck, by being a little clever.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Parkinson's is hereditary, it manifested later in his life, as it does in boxers with the genetic predisposition.

 

The message I'm trying to get across, is that we have the ability to control our luck, by being a little clever.

Well I'd never have guessed that was the message. 

[mrg]

...  by being a little clever.

 

Hoo boy, I better not touch that one.

[mrg]

It all seems terribly muddled. 

 

My initial samplings of SP suggest that is the story of his[?] life.

[Super Polymath]

My initial samplings of SP suggest that is the story of his[?] life.

I am the antithesis of OCD. I do not fall into monotonous patterns like some.

[mrg]

I do not fall into monotonous patterns like some.

 

Maybe so, but you never seem to have a different tune.   Or maybe "out of tune" would be more apt.

 

Bored now.  GAME OVER.

[Super Polymath]

Maybe so, but you never seem to have a different tune.   Or maybe "out of tune" would be more apt.

 

Bored now.  GAME OVER.

Perhaps I haven't gone out of tune enough to achieve equilibrium yet.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

I am the antithesis of OCD. I do not fall into monotonous patterns like some.

What condition is the antithesis of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, then?  

[Super Polymath]

What condition is the antithesis of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, then?  

Carnal Hedonic Capital. 

[exchemist]

Carnal Hedonic Capital. 

Does that mean you are a w*nker? :)

[Super Polymath]

Does that mean you are a w*nker? :)

No, it means I haven't "tried my luck" with the proper type.

[exchemist]

No, it means I haven't "tried my luck" with the proper type.

Haha. I was just pulling your leg.

 

I say again, leg. :)

[Super Polymath]

Haha. I was just pulling your leg.

 

I say again, leg. :)

Sorry, but I can copulate with my type, so you are not my type.