Girls: Height preference is ok. Men: If you have weight as a preference you're a pig

[Johnny M]

Not true. I just read an article today about a study that suggests women will be getting shorter and heavier. I don't think I can post the link, but you can just google "genetics shorter fatter women".

Heavier than what? An average present-day American woman? Now that's a scary thought...

 

No, lmfao, short peopel aren't being "darwined" out. Humans are just getting better nutrition and health and it's making them grow, slowly though. And I'm emphasizing the "slowly" because I know you're going to say something like "zomg that means girls like taller guys because theyre more healthy!!111!" The change is so gradual in humans there isn't a way the human mind could subconcsiously relate health with height.

Nutrition is part of it, but good nutrition has only been available to the average family for about 100 years. Humans have been getting taller over the last 3 million years. The earliest human ancestor, australopithecus, was in the 4'0 - 4'3 range.

[pacific84]

And to the guy who keeps bringing up the Japanese, I'm not interested in engaging in the whole 'which race is superior' debate

 

You're interested in saying "men with shorter legs and women with flatter chests have inferior genes." The Japanese people do meet that criteria, so I'm forcing you to confront something that challenges your beliefs. Of course you're not interested in responding to it, I didn't expect you to be. People are rarely interested in challenging their own beliefs.

 

You do realize that fact that they make good cars and DVD players and presently have a high standard of living saying absolutely nothing about their genetic makeup, right?

Well, whether creating a car or a DVD player has to do with a person's genetics is more of a scientific question than a moral question, I don't have the answer either way.

 

If you're asking my opinion on what constitutes good genes. I think there are a few criteria I would use to measure the quality of a person's genes. If a person has a genetic inclination toward health or illness, their lifespan, how healthy they are, their IQ, things of that nature.

 

If a person came from a family of people who lived into their 90s and had no family history of health problems, I would say they had good genes regardless of height or breast size. If they came from a family of people with high IQs, I would say that's another criteria. I'd put the physical element on the list too, coordination, ability to build muscle, things like that, not to the exclusion of everything else though.

Edited November 6, 2009 by pacific84

[pacific84]

Nutrition is part of it, but good nutrition has only been available to the average family for about 100 years. Humans have been getting taller over the last 3 million years. The earliest human ancestor, australopithecus, was in the 4'0 - 4'3 range.

 

Nutrition's actually a pretty big factor in it. An example of that is the Koreans, the North Koreans are on average several inches shorter than the South Koreans. They were the same people but after having been divided into North Korea and South Korea under two separate Governments, the south is prosperous and the north a repressive dictatorship. The result is that the people in North Korea became malnourished and don't reach their potential.

[Johnny M]

You're interested in saying "men with shorter legs and women with flatter chests have inferior genes." The Japanese people do meet that criteria, so I'm forcing you to confront something that challenges your beliefs. Of course you're not interested in responding to it, I didn't expect you to be. People are rarely interested in challenging their own beliefs.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that I wasn't interested in engaging in a racial superiority debate. There are other places on the internet where you can do that if that's your interest. My point is that you need to compare individuals, not groups of individuals. The Japanese are where they are today as a nation because of a variety of historical, social and economic factors that have nothing to do with genetics.

 

Look at North Korea, for example. Koreans and Japanese are genetically identical, as the latter originally descended from the former. Yet, North Korea is far behind Japan in just every standard of living category. Clearly, genes play only a limited role when it comes to how successful an entire nation can be. Genes only matter when it comes to a particular individual's survival in a primitive, prehistoric environment (the kind of environment that our ancestors lived in for much of human history).

Edited November 6, 2009 by Johnny M

[Johnny M]

Nutrition's actually a pretty big factor in it. An example of that is the Koreans, the North Koreans are on average several inches shorter than the South Koreans. They were the same people but after having been divided into North Korea and South Korea under two separate Governments, the south is prosperous and the north a repressive dictatorship. The result is that the people in North Korea became malnourished and don't reach their potential.

Thank you! You've just proven my point. As your own example demonstrates, you can't look at how well of a particular nation is to determine the genetic quality of its population.

[Rudderless]

Actually, short people are being darwined out. Modern day humans are significantly taller than people who lived in the middle ages, who were in turn taller than people who lived in ancient times, who were in turn taller than our pre-homo sapiens ancestors. Height obviously has an evolutionary advantage, at least when it comes to humans.

 

 

Darwinism doesn't work like that. Height has no major use to the survival of the species in the modern world. Given that the mechanical revolution has made strength redundant, if you'd like to tell us what it is feel free. You seem to think the world consists purely of North America which is on the verge of being trumped in the world order by a continent with a demographic consisting of smaller people.

 

In fact, tall people are more likely to get a cut in numbers in the future due to overpopulation and resource depletion. If you can develop 3 productive members of society using the same resources it takes to develop 2 then it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to develop 3. We need to adapt to our new set of circumstances which is why everything our species does now is going to be centred around making things more compact and resource efficient. Anything not key to our survival that's a burden on resources will have to be limited, haven't you noticed that this is the charter that's been signed up to?

 

However I wouldn't say they would be be darwined out, that would just be dumb as we need diversity for the adaptability of the species - darwining out a particular subset of the population is like saying all people of a particular skin colour will be lost in the future due to social bias - probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week

 

Genes only matter when it comes to a particular individual's survival in a primitive, prehistoric environment (the kind of environment that our ancestors lived in for much of human history).

You don't seem to have noticed that we're not living in a primitive prehistoric environment and have a new set of challenges. Edited November 6, 2009 by Rudderless

[Rudderless]

Not true. I just read an article today about a study that suggests women will be getting shorter and heavier. I don't think I can post the link, but you can just google "genetics shorter fatter women".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17997-meet-future-woman-shorter-plumper-more-fertile.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

 

That would actually make sense as the extra weight is useful for reproduction, whereas extra height isn't.

[pacific84]

Thank you! You've just proven my point. As your own example demonstrates, you can't look at how well of a particular nation is to determine the genetic quality of its population.

 

It would only prove that if there wasn't a genetic component to it as well, and all peoples had the same genetic potential height. Anyhow we've both stated our cases and it would only go in circles past this point.

[DanielMadr]

Yeah because when guy is short there nothing he can do about it. But being fat means its ones choice - so basically when you use a word fat you also bring up lazy - and its two faults in one word.

 

Women are able to shout you to death. Their ego is just too much bigger than mans ego. You suggest she is fat and she will hate you actively until she dies.

[DanielMadr]

 

You don't seem to have noticed that we're not living in a primitive prehistoric environment and have a new set of challenges.

 

The modern era is too short and too fragile.

Our brains are still in the taller the better mode and it wont change because civilisation is still too fragile in sense of security - meaning enemies and natural disasters.

 

Visit some foreign country or just go to rough neighborhood near your home...the taller you are the better your chances for survival.

 

You argument about making things more compact due to overpopulating wasnt meant seriously was it?

[Johnny M]

The modern era is too short and too fragile.

Our brains are still in the taller the better mode and it wont change because civilisation is still too fragile in sense of security - meaning enemies and natural disasters.

Exactly.

 

I must say, this forum is full of pathetic, insecure short dudes. Yes, short height is a natural disadvantage. Who said life was fair? You can cry and complain all you want, or you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that the Japanese are even shorter, but that's not going to change anything, now is it? Just learn to live with what you've got.

[pacific84]

I must say, this forum is full of pathetic, insecure short dudes. Yes, short height is a natural disadvantage. Who said life was fair?

 

Johnny, if we're the insecure ones, then how come you're the one talking about genetic superiority and inferiority? If you have a need to believe you're better than other people because your legs are longer, what does that say about you Johnny?

Edited November 7, 2009 by pacific84

[Johnny M]

Johnny, if we're the insecure ones, then how come you're the one talking about genetic superiority and inferiority? I think that's pretty pathetic in and of itself.

Didn't you say that you're done stating your case and that "it would only go on in circles past this point"? So now you're back because your feelings got hurt? Now that's pathetic.

[AD1980]

Exactly.

 

I must say, this forum is full of pathetic, insecure short dudes. Yes, short height is a natural disadvantage. Who said life was fair? You can cry and complain all you want, or you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that the Japanese are even shorter, but that's not going to change anything, now is it? Just learn to live with what you've got.

 

Jesus you got quite an ego..

 

If you werent a superior tall being i might try to agrue with you but it would be fruitless u guess..

[pacific84]

You didn't answer the question Johnny boy. What does it say about you, that you think you're better than people who's legs are shorter than yours?

[DanielMadr]

Johnny, if we're the insecure ones, then how come you're the one talking about genetic superiority and inferiority? I think that's pretty pathetic in and of itself.

 

I believe Johnny was provoked by some irracional comments stating that being taller is not an advantage.

 

I believe that it is advantage but I also believe that there is a place for short guys - diversity is important as well. What makes me sad is when someone is crying about it eventhough there is no need for tears.

 

Just like the purpose of this thread....girls are not fair...booohooo. Grow up. Ive seen short guys pulling hot chicks just because they were cool, had some balls and were over their inferior complexes. And they were real small guys and the chicks were really hot, I kid you not.

[Johnny M]

You didn't answer the question Johnny boy. What does it say about you, that you think you're better than people who's legs are shorter than yours?

Just read what DanielMadr said above. I don't consider myself superior because of my height. However, to deny that height has evolutionary advantage is downright dumb, as are all the short guys who's feelings got hurt when I stated that basic fact.

[AD1980]

I believe Johnny was provoked by some irracional comments stating that being taller is not an advantage.

 

 

Yeah that is pretty harsh to tell somebody theyre not superior just because theyre tall..Some people cant be mean

[pacific84]

I didn't deny that it's an advantage in a social way, I'm not oblivious to reality, but for a guy to argue his own genetic superiority and then call other people insecure is really something else.

[DanielMadr]

Yeah that is pretty harsh to tell somebody theyre not superior just because theyre tall..Some people cant be mean

 

If you have two identical guys(IQ, hormone levels, agility etc..) but one is taller....then he is superior.

 

Do you agree?

 

It is the same like if you have fastest woman and fastest man. Man will outrun the woman. Feministas will flame you for stating that blinded by their agenda. We are speaking in general terms, of course that the fastest woman can probably outrun me but it doesnt change the fact that men are better runners in general.

[burning 4 revenge]

I would like to be six feet tall, but if given the choice I would prefer to have more inches added to my penis than my height

[mbeewood]

Exactly.

 

I must say, this forum is full of pathetic, insecure short dudes. Yes, short height is a natural disadvantage. Who said life was fair? You can cry and complain all you want, or you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that the Japanese are even shorter, but that's not going to change anything, now is it? Just learn to live with what you've got.

 

Only with women. In any other area it doesn't make a difference.

[mbeewood]

If you have two identical guys(IQ, hormone levels, agility etc..) but one is taller....then he is superior.

 

Do you agree?

 

 

No, because there's not actually anything positive about height itself.

[DanielMadr]

I would like to be six feet tall, but if given the choice I would prefer to have more inches added to my penis than my height

 

I thought your baldness and rouged beard are your weapon of choice. Damn man, you were my role model. Now I have to shave the beard?

 

I prescibed to one of the sex ads to make your junior longer....They say that you can make your penis longer by pulling on it or massaging it with oil made of full moon nights roadkills.

 

When is full moon btw?

[mbeewood]

I would like to be six feet tall, but if given the choice I would prefer to have more inches added to my penis than my height

I'd actually rather be around 5'10. But apparently being "just average" is too much to ask for. Thanks nature.