Go back to "Laughter" | Contents | Continue to "Unnatural Selection"
Many scientists glorify man's aggression because it is beneficial to "sexual selection."
"Hence it is the males that fight together and sedulously display their charm before the female; and the victors transmit their superiority to their male off-spring," Darwin explains in The Descent of Man. Darwin can be excused for having picked a special moment in British history, in a particular social, economic and intellectual atmosphere, as the universal law for the human species. Darwin never witnessed the consequences of free medicine and social legislation, which help what he calls the "less fit" to survive and reproduce more than the "fit." One cannot, however, excuse modern Darwinists who persist in acclaiming "sexual selection," when there are obvious examples that it is not the "fittest" who have the better chance of survival and reproduction in a Welfare State.
Darwin and Darwinists have never defined the meaning of the "fittest"; possibly because there is no such thing as the "fittest" in the human species, a species with no natural specialization.
"That the males of all mammalians eagerly pursue the female is notorious to everyone," Darwin writes in The Descent of Man. "Males of mammalians pursue the females."
Humans are mammals, ergo human males pursue human females. This is a pure syllogism, far from the truth, particularly, nowadays, with the emancipation of woman.
The human species became a unique species because of the lack of any aggressive instinct in the human male. Without the instinct of aggression there can be no natural or "sexual" selection. Many authors wrongly confuse "sexual selection" with jealousy, "machismo," exhibitionism, or social rivalry, which are states of mind.
In the world of mammals sexual selection decides the fittest male. The female automatically agrees to be inseminated by the fittest male. With the human species, this makes no sense.
A fit and successful man in a military, academic, or business career, is not necessarily sexually fit. Professional success needs concentration, which saps sexual performance.
Besides, we can presume that a successful man transmits his qualities to his son. Would the same qualities, however, be successful with the new generation, bearing in mind the changing values of the times?
But even if men are successful in certain fields in the eyes of other men, it does not mean that women agree. Many men admired Napoleon, but few women.
Darwin forgot that while women may be charmed by genius or physical beauty, they marry and procreate with what Kierkegaard called "the fat, self-indulgent mediocrity."
Sexual maniacs or frustrated "Latin lovers" have more chance of procreating than conscientious, good-looking Swedes. And what about sexual caprices? Karl Marx married a German aristocrat but he had a child with her maid.
The human species is the least likely species to maintain the validity of "sexual selection." Most humans were conceived, either in a drunken or drugged state, or in wedlock. "Sexual selection," even if it existed in man's nature, could never operate inside the institution of marriage. Ever since the adolescent revolution, sexual relationships have been regulated by religious, social, moral, and economic rules, which preclude natural and sexual selection.
Natural and sexual selection cannot exist in a species in which sick people can procreate and transmit their illnesses to their progeny. Natural and sexual selection cannot exist in a species which buys sex, or punishes adultery, or uses synthetic hormones.
That fashion, publicity, and films can dictate sex appeal is evidence that there is no innate criterion for sexual selection in the human species. Today, actors and actresses inspire the sexual taste. In ancient Rome they were considered second-rate people.
Above all, we must stress that the more responsible, and the healthier morally and physically, the couples are, the fewer children they have compared with couples with the opposite characteristics.
We have seen that human procreation is the result of three obsessions: the pleasure of sex, the pleasure of the mind, and the search for immortality. These, being obsessions, cannot produce selective breeding.
Being a singular species, humanity has produced a phenomenon: vast numbers of homosexuals. They are often a fit and very successful element in the struggle for existence but they seldom reproduce. The Catholic Church was and still is dominated by asexuals. What is more, this hierarchy of asexuals has established the pattern of sexual behavior for millions of people for centuries.
In order to discuss "natural selection" we need a criterion for it. As humans have no natural specialization, we can only have an abstract criterion of "natural selection."
"From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes," Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man. He did not, however, define "successful tribes." Babylon was occupied by Assyrians, Crete by Greeks, ancient Rome by Vandals, Byzantium by Turks, Renaissance Rome by Spaniards and Paris by Prussians. In each case the occupied were more advanced in culture and civilization than the occupiers. We have also seen, throughout history, larger countries taking over smaller countries, regardless of whether the smaller countries were more advanced from a natural point of view.
"Do not obtain your slaves from Britons, for they are so stupid and dull that they are not fit for slaves," Cicero advised. Eighteen centuries later, a short time for any "natural selection" to succeed so radically, Britons became the most "successful tribe" in the world.
Natural selection cannot succeed in a species where lunatics can kill Presidents with man-made weapons, or where Presidents may be lunatics.
What kind of natural selection could exist in a dictatorship? "The less favored individuals will tend to die out," Darwinists say. This may be true, but it is the "less favored" by the official policy who are dying out, those who are usually more favored by nature. In Nazi Germany, the Jews, the "less favored" by the Nazi policy, indeed, died out, but this did not mean that they were "less favored" from a natural or cultural point of view.
Go back to "Laughter" | Contents | Continue to "Unnatural Selection"
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com