@ITellYouHhwut,
ITellYouHhwut wrote:
I appreciate all the replies. However, I disagree with all of you.
I believe that we have effectively subverted the work of nature selection by creating modern, technological, egalitarian societies. The inferior are sheltered from the wrath of nature now, and they end up not getting what would have used to had been coming to them by natural selection.
Back in the old days, there was no such thing as weak, stupid, lazy, incompetent, incapable, or undesirable people. That’s because natural selection weeded them out. They either died before they could mate, or their poor genetics ensured that they had no mating success. Back in those days, if you were an inferior individual, you didn’t get a government check, section 8 housing, foodstamps, and a free car. You died. These people are kept alive these days; a total subversion of the natural order. Thus, as a result we have a bunch of lazy, stupid, depressed, good-for-nothing people walking around. Crime, drug problems, homelessness. These problems arise because we somehow think we just HAVE to keep everyone alive and view all lives as special; when in reality life would be much much better if we took off the warning labels, scaled back our aid to people, and allowed nature to weed out the inferior and leave the superior to thrive.
So, I believe unquestionably that if you don’t attract women naturally (or at least semi-naturally with some basic effort) then it is impossible to change that. It just simply is if you look at evolution. You can’t get to my age as a virgin who’s never been on a date and think that there is hope. You’re DREAMING if you think that.
You assume that the only two options are success and death. In reality, there is no perfection, so even the most relatively perfect beings are flawed in various ways. What's more, genetic perfection means very little if the genetically perfect being is culturally/morally inadequate. The kinds of moral virtues you describe are not the product of DNA but of good moral choices. If well-bred people make bad moral choices, it hardly matters how good their DNA is.
So the fact that moral/cultural/behavioral discipline is possible but essential to the pursuit of higher quality living and individuals means that you have a duty to not only discipline your own mind and body, but also others. We are our brothers' keepers, to use the biblical term. I would not be communicating this information with a stranger on the internet if I didn't see it as a moral duty as much as if it was a close friend or family member. Moral discipline has nothing to do with how close you are with someone, though, but with how committed you are to making the world a better place. You are ultimately only responsible for yourself and your children, but it is good to communicate with others in hopes of encouraging them to be more responsible for themselves and their own discipline.
Killing yourself or others would be an immense failure of moral discipline. You can't save everyone from themselves but you can give them as much opportunity to choose the right path for themselves. You could let everyone die of even the slightest weakness, but you'd still have the problem of healthy, strong bodies with bad morals, character, etc. So there is really no point in having the dream of a eugenic survival-of-the-fittest society like you describe. It would be far better to have a society where people work constructively to achieve the discipline it takes to make themselves, others, and the rest of the planet as healthy and well-functioning as possible. That is the best we can do, and it is what we should do; you included. Sorry you disagree, but you're wrong.