• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Ugly People Smell Bad, Die Quickly & Don't Make Babies: Therefore The Result Is...

Ermintruder

Ermintruder

The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
6,206
Apologies for the somewhat-blunt opening approach for this thread, and its current placement. Maybe it needs to be repolished and placed elsewhere. But I believe this is a valid discussion.

(I need to regenerate my sources, otherwise this may be too much anecdotal anthropology and half-remembered popsci evolutionary biology: but here goes....)

Humanity is a very-special case of primate development. Exactly how we got to nearly where we are now is somewhere between arguable fact and semi-informed opinion.

I say "got to nearly" because I feel, strongly (and hopefully wrongly) that within the generations that have been conceived after the main world wars of 20th century, human beings in the extended 'western' world are becoming ever-more:

  • Superficially-pretty (especially facially)
  • Extended childhoods (Peter Pan syndrome)
  • Narcissistic (extended cryptosexualities)
  • Physically weak (averse to all forms of paid physical work, yet willing to pay for physical exercise)
  • Mentally unstable (and unwilling/unable to concentrate)
  • Infinitely self-centred
  • Over-nourished (cf fat & hyperglycemic)
  • Thrill-seeking (but not real sacrifice)
  • Risk-averse (sanctity of self)
  • Unwilling (or unable through reduced fertility / cryptosexualities) to mate
  • Tall (as a function of hyper-nutrition & hybrid vigor)

This rambling hypothesis is particularly predicated upon the postulation that beautiful people tend to mate with reasonably-pretty peers, and they then (unsurprisingly) produce ever-prettier babies, rinse & repeat: to which a valid response might be "yes- everyone subconsciously knows this to be approximately true: what is your point?"

I am trying to conclude whether the neotony-centric feminised apes that we, biologically, can be thought of being, are utterly-doomed (especially in the developed 'west').

We all just get generationally prettier and prettier (jawlines/skull-shapes/cheek-bones)....any comparison of photographs of groups over the 20thC/early 21stC show this to be fairly-correct as a generalisation, albeit subjectively (and it's not just a function of better dentistry)

We're becoming just a sprawling tribe of tall, selfish, underapplied, incapable babies, with big overstimulated brains, untidy bedrooms and expensive toys.

So: what happens now? And what happens next (say by 2120). I'm looking to identify what the actionable corollary emerging from this, is.

Or tell me I'm wrong. Deluded by impression, not substance. Deceived by confirmation bias and pessimism. Please.
 
Last edited:
Cochise said:
The concept of what is 'pretty' has become very standardised
Click to expand...
Yes it has, but maybe it was always there, waiting to become the inevitable emergent apex.

I'm going to say, statistically, that particular 'standard' does tend to satisfy the majority. You and I both might have outlier preferences- but we're just in the margins.
 
I know this doesn't address all your concerns Ermintruder, but maybe some of them?
https://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-wrong-with-young-people-today.html
I feel one must try to be optimistic at this time of year. And I speak as an ever-trying-to-reform pessimist :)
One has to remember that what you read and see on the internet isn't reality, and there's always the opportunity to grow.
And I even find myself agreeing with Maximus Otter, that most people you bump into don't reflect the trends towards superficial prettiness?!
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
If the denizens of my local High Street are the product of selective breeding for attractiveness over a period of centuries, then people in mediaeval times must have been proper ****ing mingers.

maximus otter
Click to expand...

You could try a bit of selective eugenics and shoot those fuglies of breeding age.
 
Ermintruder said:
... I feel, strongly (and hopefully wrongly) that within the generations that have been conceived after the main world wars of 20th century, human beings in the extended 'western' world are becoming ever-more: ...
Click to expand...

I admit to having similar trends come to mind on an anecdotal or circumstantial basis. However, I don't think I can endorse all the items you cite as representing interrelated phenomena, much less a single / unified, phenomenon.

For starters, here are some cursory comments on the items you listed ...

Superficially-pretty (especially facially)

The eyes of this beholder have never operated "on the same wavelength" as most of my peers, with the result that my attributions of attractiveness have never clearly, much less strictly, aligned with those of others. Having said that ...

I know what you're talking about, but I don't think it can be simplistically attributed to self-organizing eugenics. There are other reasons why more people on the street seem proportionally comely (compared to the proportion who aren't). For example, medical advances and access to remedial interventions have progressively eliminated many of the disfiguring effects of genetics, physical development, illnesses and injuries. When's the last time you saw a young adult with a hare-lip?

The combination of proliferating cosmetic products and treatments has also contributed to a higher proportion of people who look attractive. It's also the case that purported standards of beauty have elaborated and diversified to accommodate more variety than was the case (e.g.) a half-century ago.

I do think there's been a discernible trend in facial features during my lifetime, but it has more to do with progressive homogenization than proliferating beauty. To my eyes more and more people look similar, but the similarity range doesn't extend as far as "notably beautiful / handsome." If anything, the increasingly common motif is more like "big baby" / "Cabbage Patch doll" than outright "looker."


Extended childhoods (Peter Pan syndrome)
Infinitely self-centred
Over-nourished (cf fat & hyperglycemic)
Tall (as a function of hyper-nutrition & hybrid vigor)

I generally agree with these items as trends.


Mentally unstable (and unwilling/unable to concentrate)

I generally agree that there's a discernible increase, but ... I disagree with the way you've stated these two items as if they're one thing or strongly interrelated. The mental (and I'd add "emotional") instability is strongly related to socio-cultural influences and pressures, whereas the inability to concentrate (though also affected by socio-cultural influences) is more an individual problem.


Narcissistic (extended cryptosexualities)

I generally agree that there's a discernible increase in narcissistic tendencies, but ... I disagree with the way you've stated this to imply cryptosexualities represent the sole or key factor. The most narcissistic younger folks I know self-identify as traditionally straight.


Physically weak (averse to all forms of paid physical work, yet willing to pay for physical exercise)

I generally agree with the parenthetical specifics, but I can't say I've perceived a general trend toward innate physical weakness. On the other hand, there's no question an increasing proportion of people are "out of shape."


Thrill-seeking (but not real sacrifice)
Risk-averse (sanctity of self)

I think I know what you're alluding to, but I disagree with the way you've framed these items.

In my experience, there's definitely a trend toward casually aspiring to more extravagant objectives and accomplishments (e.g., higher status; better jobs; more toys) than was the case for my generation. However, only a small fraction of the younger folks I've known have pursued "thrills" per se. If anything, my generation took more risks in pursuing "fun" or "thrills" than younger folks I've known.

I'd rephrase the first item as something more like "Success / Status Aspirations (unrealized via requisite sacrifices and efforts)."

Similarly, I'd rephrase the second item as something more like "Effort-averse (preference for the easy way)."


Unwilling (or unable through reduced fertility / cryptosexualities) to mate

I agree with the notion that there's a trend away from breeding as a standard life expectation. However ...

I don't think there's a credible basis for claiming any universal decline in fertility - at least not to any appreciable degree.

I strongly believe socio-cultural pressures to spawn have relaxed / diminished during my lifetime. This, combined with some of the earlier-cited factors, has decreased individual motivations to have children as a matter of course.

Ermintruder said:
This rambling hypothesis is particularly predicated upon the postulation that beautiful people tend to mate with reasonably-pretty peers, and they then (unsurprisingly) produce ever-prettier babies, rinse & repeat ...
Click to expand...

I can't say my experience supports the notion that notably pretty people always tend to mate with other pretty people (at least not after their first failed marriage ... :evillaugh:).

Ermintruder said:
I am trying to conclude whether the neotony-centric feminised apes that we, biologically, can be thought of being, are utterly-doomed (especially in the developed 'west').
Click to expand...

I strongly support that conclusion, but not solely on the basis of the factors you've cited here.

Ermintruder said:
We're becoming just a sprawling tribe of tall, selfish, underapplied, incapable babies, with big overstimulated brains, untidy bedrooms and expensive toys.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me ...
 
First Year Psychology 35 years ago, I read of an experiment where male subjects were each given (the same) 10 photos of females and asked to rank them in order of attractiveness. Just about all of them put the photos in the same order as each other - so much for beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Except that beauty and attractiveness are not necessarily the same thing - I remember someone making the observation that at least 50% of the reason you find some-one attractive is because you sense they are attracted to you.
Of course if you are aesthetically-challenged (like me) and you find a similar partner (unlike me), then you are obliged by Nature to produce as many fugly offspring as possible.

Their eyes met.jpg
 
Supposedly being on birth control pills changes women's taste in men. I wonder if that might have caused a change in offspring, compared to 100 years ago.
 
Xanatic* said:
Supposedly being on birth control pills changes women's taste in men. ...
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of clarity ...

Are you saying The Pill affects women's (a) aesthetic preferences or (b) flavor? :thought:

:evillaugh:
 
Ermintruder said:
  • Superficially-pretty (especially facially)
  • Extended childhoods (Peter Pan syndrome)
  • Narcissistic (extended cryptosexualities)
  • Physically weak (averse to all forms of paid physical work, yet willing to pay for physical exercise)
  • Mentally unstable (and unwilling/unable to concentrate)
  • Infinitely self-centred
  • Over-nourished (cf fat & hyperglycemic)
  • Thrill-seeking (but not real sacrifice)
  • Risk-averse (sanctity of self)
  • Unwilling (or unable through reduced fertility / cryptosexualities) to mate
  • Tall (as a function of hyper-nutrition & hybrid vigor)
Click to expand...


I largely agree @Ermintruder

My thoughts below, based exclusively on living in London, England now, compared my observations of the late 80's:


Pretty?

There is a tendency for many women to look "pretty" in social media photos.
This is a result of beauty treatments yes, but also wigs, advances in make up and technology - there are some very advanced filters for those photos.
They also use very thick make up.
But a fair few of these are not so pretty without make-up and filters etc.


Extended childhoods?

As life spans tend to be mid-80's for men, there is less pressure to "grow up" by the age of 18.
And with a mortgage out of reach for a greater percentage of men then 40 years ago, more years to "travel" before joining the rat race.


Narsicsstic?

Yes. Social media.


Physically weak?

Polarised. Some men cultivate the "skinny jeans" look, but definitely an increase in people lifting weights in gyms.


Mentally unstable?

Less concentration and poor conversation. A result of messaging apps and weed use.


Infinitely self-centred?

Yes, linked to social media peer pressure to excel.
Less humility.
And peopelewho just walk everywhere buried in their electronic device, not looking up to avoid bumping in to people


Over nourished?

More fat people?
Yes, linked to less manual work, and increased computer games, and app delivered junk food.
But also more very health conscious vegans.


Thrill seeking?

Yes, linked to social media "experiences".


Risk averse?

I do not agree. I think people are quite willing to accept overseas jobs or invest in start-ups, if they can afford to do so.


Unwilling to mate?

I think peopel mate at a ater age becaue of the increased cost of living, leading to need to work longer before affordign a stable home and marriage.
Also more openly homosexual people.


Tall?

Yes! Seems nearly everyone is over 6 foot for man, over 5 ft 8 for women.
Very noticeable over even 20 years ago.
I am not sure why this has happened, but I have a theory it is because there is a sort of competitive need to be taller, in order to be seen as a potential parent, and the body somehow adapts to this competition.


I now throw in some of my own:


Louder?

People talk loudly and almost boastful about the most mundane of things.


Less discretion?

People eating hot food on trains, buses etc. Less communal thought for respect of others.


Discouraging?

Seems people make a great thing of putting-down others, discouraging them, being condescending, even to strangers, rather than a more uplifting helpful attitude of even 20 years ago.
 
Last edited:
I work with the public every day in often stressful and even potentially dangerous situations and spend little time on social media, and I find most people to be intelligent and co-operative. They will usually help strangers and are kind to each other's children. Many will share interesting anecdotes and advice which I sometimes post here.

My conclusion is that while modern life can be complicated and difficult, ordinary people do their best to get on with it and with each other.

This is what happens when you drag your face out of the internet and deal with real people instead.
 
Cochise said:
The concept of what is 'pretty' has become very standardised. It happens not to agree with my definition of beauty in women.
Click to expand...
As someone with a background in Anthropology allow me to disabuse you of this notion. Human beings have a surprisingly standard notion of attractiveness, and generally always have. The notable exception was that there was a period when fat women were seen as being more desirable during the Stone Age (and in Islam). Of course, that was due to the implicit prosperity involved in being able to be fat. Apart from women with unusual genetics who tend towards the Venus of Willendorf in body shape, most people couldn't get fat, as food was too hard won.
For the most part, humans are attracted to regular and symmetrical features, and a well turned (but not overly large) bottom in both genders is seen as desirable as it suggests good upright posture and distance from the hairy ancestors.

Admittedly this view of beauty and desirability is superficial, and the older you get, the wiser you get in seeking certain traits of personality in a mate. Take that as a compliment Cochise.
 
Though it's a cliché that the younger generation are more narcissistic, it ain't necessarily so (at least depending on how you define 'narcissism').

"Generally, narcissistic traits like being full of yourself, being sensitive to criticism, and imposing your opinion on others declined "over time and with age."

But when the team compared generations, the older generations tended to be more sensitive as a whole.

The study suggests that baby boomers, or "individuals who were born earlier in the [20th] century," had higher levels of hypersensitivity, or being full of themselves, and higher levels of willfulness, or the tendency to impose their opinion on others. "
 
Just before the Christmas holiday I was sat in Morrisons cafe having a coffee while my wife was shopping (as one tends to do; in a supermarket) when I got to looking at the crowds of older folk in there.

All shapes and sizes. Definitely seen better days most of them, and probably a long time ago.

And the thought crossed my mind 'I probably went to school with some of them'.

INT21.
 
If ugly people die soon and don't make babies, why are they not extinct ?
 
Is there truly a scientific basis for the title of this thread? :thought:

1. Different people have different ideas of "beauty," and ideas of "beauty" are also heavily influenced by culture and historical era.
2. "Women prefer male partners with differing MHC genes from themselves." (MHC = Major histocompatibility complex.) Women are physically attracted to men whose b.o. reveals they have immunity to different stuff. One woman's b.o. is another's aromatic lure.
3. Some ugly people live lots longer than beautiful people. Consider James Dean and Mitch McConnell. No contest there, agreed?

Ergo, it doesn't matter how ugly or smelly most people think you are, if you want to make babies and you are a man, you only need to find one potential mate who finds you irresistible on account of your mug and your b.o. :dpoo:
 
IbisNibs said:
, it doesn't matter how ugly or smelly most people think you are, if you want to make babies and you are a man, you only need to find one potential mate who finds you irresistible on account of your mug and your b.o.
Click to expand...
Words of wizz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top