Why majority of people should not have kids

[Eskander]

I already demolished your other thesis justifying slavery. After several replies you could not give me an objective, scientific basis for your thesis: you could not define 'greatness' objectively.

This thread has the same fundamental flaw: until you can provide objective, scientific definitions for your terms (greatness, beauty, etc), this is just another pseudo-scientific desperate attention grab.

Okay one topic at a time, let's discuss beauty. I will post a couple of pics to make my point clear and back them up with scientific studies

Research over the past 20 years has shown that judgments of facial attractiveness are universal; people from all cultures and backgrounds rank and rate faces for attractiveness the same. As such a model for objectively rating facial attractiveness is theoretically plausible, if designed, it would have many uses, including outcomes analysis in plastic surgery of the face. The authors tested a schematic facial composite/prototype mathematical model (the phi mask created by Dr. Stephen Marquardt) as a method for measuring facial attractiveness in an objective manner.

An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness - PubMed

The phi mask model supports averageness or prototypicality of the face as being the major component of the facial attractiveness gestalt and is a first step in producing an objective system for measuring facial attractiveness.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.

The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty - PubMed

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tell me , is beauty really in the eye of the beholder ?

Who is more beautiful here ?

Or

 

[Nadeem Ganjum]

That is what the Nazi leadership thought and did too.

You guys need to stop bringing the Nazis into every discussion.

 

[Eskander]

We can only wish, your parents have followed your advice before your birth.

Yes yes sir yes sir yes sir

 

[Paitoo]

If only sexy people are allowed to live, they will bang more often and have more kids. What will happen to your theory then?

 

[Eskander]

Sexist !

Proudly so

If only sexy people are allowed to live, they will bang more often and have more kids. What will happen to your theory then?

In principle, no one should have kids but if you really want to have kids, make sure you don't transfer your sh*t genetics to them, make sure they won't have any monetary concerns in life, make sure you don't bring more suffering into the world

The best option - Don't have kids
Second best option - have kids if you meet certain criteria of looks/wealth/intelligence

 

[aakalim]

While there are certain universal traits that we as humans have evolved to find attractive, there is still a lot of subjectiveness to beauty and attractivity.

Either way, beauty is not the only criteria for selection of a mate. Otherwise, ugly people would not been able to procreate.

I am all for having less children, but my reasons are different; the coming climate catastrophe will make life extremely difficult for any future generation.

 

[WotTen]

Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty.

Yes, I remember hearing about this study also. It is merely talking about the foundational requirements for what are prerequisites to even enter the beauty contest. As they later admit, most of it boils down to a healthy body. Obviously, when someone has medical problems, it often shows up in their external appearance, especially the face.

All of this doesn't change the fact that standards of beauty change over time and across cultures. The Rubenesque beauty of the past would not fly today, at least in Western culture. Similarly, the sun-tanned beauty of today would be shunned in the fair-skinned worship of the past.

Also notice the first word in that list is 'average'. How can you advocate that 'most people should not have kids unless they are beautiful' when the first requirement for beauty is to be 'average'?

 

[Splurgenxs]

Man this one gave me a chuckle .

If i may, i would like to recommend
The Selfish Gene

 

[Faqirze]

Notice how its always the worst 3rd world hellholes where people decide to have the most kids and bring them into such misery. Why would you bring a poor soul into such a situation?

 

[Eskander]

Yes, I remember hearing about this study also. It is merely talking about the foundational requirements for what are prerequisites to even enter the beauty contest. As they later admit, most of it boils down to a healthy body. Obviously, when someone has medical problems, it often shows up in their external appearance, especially the face.

Not only that. A beautiful face exists to show how healthy you are, it's there to attract the opposite gender. That's why women don't date bald short ugly men. Their genes suck lol

All of this doesn't change the fact that standards of beauty change over time and across cultures. The Rubenesque beauty of the past would not fly today, at least in Western culture. Similarly, the sun-tanned beauty of today would be shunned in the fair-skinned worship of the past.

A tan doesn't really change the beauty standards, the facial structure stays the same. Scientist have found universal attractive traits and beauty transcends cultural perception, esp in this age when the whole world is a big global village

Also notice the first word in that list is 'average'. How can you advocate that 'most people should not have kids unless they are beautiful' when the first requirement for beauty is to be 'average'?

Lmao

Average facial features doesn't mean you look average. Average here means your facial features should fit harmoniously in the beauty mask. It's called facial harmony. If you have a big nose or an asymmetrical jaw, your features would deviate from the mean and make your face look ugly.

 

[Paitoo]

Proudly so


In principle, no one should have kids but if you really want to have kids, make sure you don't transfer your sh*t genetics to them, make sure they won't have any monetary concerns in life, make sure you don't bring more suffering into the world

The best option - Don't have kids
Second best option - have kids if you meet certain criteria of looks/wealth/intelligence

Maybe for wealth you can have a threshold. But how do you decide who is good looking? And why is good looking even a criteria. We could argue on IQ, but why looks?

 

[WotTen]

Not only that. A beautiful face exists to show how healthy you are, it's there to attract the opposite gender. That's why women don't date bald short ugly men. Their genes suck lol

Except that they do if the bald short ugly man is rich or powerful. Women are designed to pick mates who will guarantee the best survival for their offspring. Power and wealth transcend health any day of the week in human cultures.

A tan doesn't really change the beauty standards, the facial structure stays the same. Scientist have found universal attractive traits and beauty transcends cultural perception, esp in this age when the whole world is a big global village

A tan, in modern Western culture, indicates access to leisure time. A tan is not the same as dark-skinned. In the past, light skin was considered a status symbol (across the world) because rich people remained indoors while poor people worked out in the fields and got darker. In modern society, a tan is considered a sign of someone who has plenty of leisure time.

Average facial features doesn't mean you look average. Average here means your facial features should fit harmoniously in the beauty mask. It's called facial harmony. If you have a big nose or an asymmetrical jaw, your features would deviate from the mean and make your face look ugly.

No. Average means within acceptable norms, not at the extremes. The description you provided is called proportionality, not averageness.

 

[Eskander]

Maybe for wealth you can have a threshold. But how do you decide who is good looking? And why is good looking even a criteria. We could argue on IQ, but why looks?

Check my post above, l have quoted two studies that show its possible for anyone to decide if he's attractive or not in the eyes of the opposite gender and there's a range.

Good looks matter cause of the social, economic, physical advantage you have over others when you are good looking. Here l will quote a study

We're inclined to pay people more depending on how they look. In a 2005 experiment modeling the hiring process, would-be employers looking at photographs of would-be employees were ready to give 10.5% higher salaries to attractive people over unattractive people.

We all suffer from the "halo effect" — without realizing it, we take someone's appearance to be telling of their overall character.

Experiments have shown that we consider attractive people "as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled" than unattractive people.

By the time cute kids become attractive adults, they've benefited from this bias for years, giving them higher levels of confidence.

"Teachers expect better-looking kids to outperform in school and devote more attention to children who are perceived to have greater potential," Mobius and Rosenblat write in their 2005 paper "Why Beauty Matters." "Preferential treatment in return builds confidence as well as social and communication skills."

Experiments have shown that we consider attractive people "as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled" than unattractive people.

By the time cute kids become attractive adults, they've benefited from this bias for years, giving them higher levels of confidence

"Physical attractiveness raises social and communication skills, which in return raise an employer's estimate of the worker's productivity," researchers Mobius and Rosenblat write. "We assume that the employer is unaware of these biases and hence does not correct for them."

Research from Finland found both male and female political candidates who look better than their competitors are more successful, as voters enjoy watching good looking candidates

Joseph T. Halford and Hung-Chia Hsu, researchers from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, tested whether the appearance of a company's CEO is related to shareholder value.

They found stock prices rose higher for businesses with attractive CEOs after positive news about the company aired on TV.

One study from the '80s found that when comparing teachers who were better looking to those who were worse looking, about 100 students in the first and sixth grade reported they feel they would learn more from attractive educators.