|
How to bring down human civilisation as ravens, a simple six-step plan:
Step one: Find religious people, and talk to them from hidden spots. Tell them you are god/the ghost of their forfathers/the spirits/aliens/whatever. Get them to start doing what you want.
Step two: Freak out other people Edgar Allen Poe style.
Step three: Get blackmail material on even more people. No one is going to care if a raven sits on the windowsill while they are fucking a prostitute
Step four: After you have gained enough leverage/disciples/madmen, make them do lots of small seemingly unrelated things, most of which are irrelevant, but some of which are not.
Step five: Divide into teams and play chess with human puppets
Step six: Start a war, let the humans kill themselves, then eat their tasty, tasty eyeballs.
|
On June 02 2017 18:53 Acrofales wrote:Countermeasures activaded. Look, shiny! ![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_shiny_object.jpg) In all honesty, countering the impending corvid insurgency will be so easy. Just fill discoballs with claymores and watch the problem solve itself.
Is that supposed to counter them, or help them?
|
One thing to look after in a corvid plot is their ability for secret communication in UV light, which they perceive very well, unlike us humans. They can have signs, writings and what not all around us as we speak for what we know.
|
Hang on... some birds are supposed to steal shiny things. But at the same time people use CDs, mirrors and other shiny things to scare birds away. How does that fit? Has the birds already spread misinformation to the extent that we don't even know what their true weakness is?? Maybe it's all a setup!! They are coming for us!! :o
And as KBB didnt want us to talk about birds in the automated ban thread, it seems like we just move the bird discussion here. Makes sense.
|
All of this is a plot from rabbit to make us focus on birds anyway.
|
On June 02 2017 20:04 opisska wrote:
One thing to look after in a corvid plot is their ability for secret communication in UV light, which they perceive very well, unlike us humans. They can have signs, writings and what not all around us as we speak for what we know.
Mind blown.
In fact, I just analyzed your post in the UV spectrum and it read... NEVERMORE.
|
On June 02 2017 22:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 20:04 opisska wrote:
One thing to look after in a corvid plot is their ability for secret communication in UV light, which they perceive very well, unlike us humans. They can have signs, writings and what not all around us as we speak for what we know. Mind blown. In fact, I just analyzed your post in the UV spectrum and it read... NEVERMORE.
That's speciests to Corvids! And I would be able to write a beautiful argument why that is if that damn heart stops beating beneath the floor!
|
Like most sexual species, the sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. Due to higher female fetal mortality, the sex ratio at birth worldwide is commonly thought to be 107 boys to 100 girls, although this value is subject to debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females.
Why 1:1? Not all primates are monogamous and I assume polygamy was the dominant model among primitive humans. Why didn't evolution give us a different ratio? Why is 1:1 the most optimal ratio for certain polygamic species?
|
On June 03 2017 06:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +Like most sexual species, the sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. Due to higher female fetal mortality, the sex ratio at birth worldwide is commonly thought to be 107 boys to 100 girls, although this value is subject to debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females. Why 1:1? Not all primates are monogamous and I assume polygamy was the dominant model among primitive humans. Why didn't evolution give us a different ratio? Why is 1:1 the most optimal ratio for certain polygamic species?
That is actually a really good question, and i would like an answer to that. It actually seems kind of weird that 1:1 would be an optimal ratio, since one man can easily impregnate dozens of women. (Not only talking about humans, but other species too. Especially those where the men is not involved in caring for the children. Why don't those have shitloads of females for each man?
|
On June 03 2017 06:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:04 Sent. wrote:Like most sexual species, the sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. Due to higher female fetal mortality, the sex ratio at birth worldwide is commonly thought to be 107 boys to 100 girls, although this value is subject to debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females. Why 1:1? Not all primates are monogamous and I assume polygamy was the dominant model among primitive humans. Why didn't evolution give us a different ratio? Why is 1:1 the most optimal ratio for certain polygamic species? That is actually a really good question, and i would like an answer to that. It actually seems kind of weird that 1:1 would be an optimal ratio, since one man can easily impregnate dozens of women. (Not only talking about humans, but other species too. Especially those where the men is not involved in caring for the children. Why don't those have shitloads of females for each man?
There might have been at one point but it changed when we started with monogamy. I assume our reproduction can change based on social factors. So when we starting living reproducing 1:1 that became the optimal ratio.
|
Offspring with 2 parents looking after them have a better chance of making it into reproductive age. This is true of many warm blooded animals especially those who are helpless or need to learn when young. Why regard humans as seperate to that kind of thinking?
|
On June 03 2017 06:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:17 Simberto wrote:On June 03 2017 06:04 Sent. wrote:Like most sexual species, the sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. Due to higher female fetal mortality, the sex ratio at birth worldwide is commonly thought to be 107 boys to 100 girls, although this value is subject to debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females. Why 1:1? Not all primates are monogamous and I assume polygamy was the dominant model among primitive humans. Why didn't evolution give us a different ratio? Why is 1:1 the most optimal ratio for certain polygamic species? That is actually a really good question, and i would like an answer to that. It actually seems kind of weird that 1:1 would be an optimal ratio, since one man can easily impregnate dozens of women. (Not only talking about humans, but other species too. Especially those where the men is not involved in caring for the children. Why don't those have shitloads of females for each man? There might have been at one point but it changed when we started with monogamy. I assume our reproduction can change based on social factors. So when we starting living reproducing 1:1 that became the optimal ratio.
Yeah, but most animals don't really do monogamy, but a lot of them still have 1:1 ratios. There are a lof of fuck and forget animals that still have 1:1 ratios. I can't really think of any mammals that don't (Though i didn't really think for long). A lot of other species don't have 1:1 ratios though (Remember the weird bugs that hatch inside their mothers, for example)
|
Isn't it biologically so that males need more risky behavior to acquire sexual success and are generally more prone to dying early anyway (males are discardable in a sense), while it's much less risky for females? Look at male dominance, bright colors, seeking attention of females etc etc.. Of course there are countless examples where this isn't the case, but it's biologically pretty relevant. Even plants have developed in a similar sense lol. Preserve femininity and discard masculinity.
|
Yeah that's sometimes true but it doesn't explain why 1:1 is the most optimal. Like, sometimes you have polygamous species with 1:1 ratio where the strongest males get to have their "harems" while the weaker males don't get to reproduce or just die. But why didn't those species evolve to have for example a 1 female to 1.5 male ratio where only 1 out of 3 males gets to reproduce? Or 2 females to 1 male situation where the male ends up with 5-10 females after defeating his competition?
|
Before we go too deep here, I'd like to get a source of the statement that most sexual species are 1:1. Just to avoid trying to find out the why of something that isn't quite true. There must be a list or something.
|
Here's the answer.
Fisher’s principle explains why for most species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. Bill Hamilton expounded Fisher’s argument in his 1967 paper on “Extraordinary sex ratios”[1] as follows, given the assumption of equal parental expenditure on offspring of both sexes.
1. Suppose male births are less common than female.
2. A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3. Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4. Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5. As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6. The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
In modern language, the 1:1 ratio is the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).[10] This ratio has been observed in many species, including the bee Macrotera portalis. A study performed by Danforth observed no significant difference in the number of males and females from the 1:1 sex ratio.[11]
|
On June 03 2017 07:34 Sent. wrote:
Yeah that's sometimes true but it doesn't explain why 1:1 is the most optimal. Like, sometimes you have polygamous species with 1:1 ratio where the strongest males get to have their "harems" while the weaker males don't get to reproduce or just die. But why didn't those species evolve to have for example a 1 female to 1.5 male ratio where only 1 out of 3 males gets to reproduce? Or 2 females to 1 male situation where the male ends up with 5-10 females after defeating his competition?
Wouldn't you have more males than females born, though, but it eventually evens out? In your initial example you talk about more female fetal deaths. So when is the 1:1 sex ratio then actually measured?
On June 03 2017 09:12 Sent. wrote:Here's the answer. Show nested quote +Fisher’s principle explains why for most species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. Bill Hamilton expounded Fisher’s argument in his 1967 paper on “Extraordinary sex ratios”[1] as follows, given the assumption of equal parental expenditure on offspring of both sexes.
1. Suppose male births are less common than female.
2. A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3. Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4. Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5. As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6. The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
In modern language, the 1:1 ratio is the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).[10] This ratio has been observed in many species, including the bee Macrotera portalis. A study performed by Danforth observed no significant difference in the number of males and females from the 1:1 sex ratio.[11]
But think about this: "genes" for spreading male-producing tendencies makes no sense, because the chances of being male or female stays 50% you won't have xy sperm that suddenly swims 10% faster than the xx sperm, because that's what the only difference between both is. You'd need to have an unevenness in structure of the different sexed sperm. Where all the difference would need to be between an x and y chromosome. More men just don't magically appear like that.
The sex 1:1 ratio is because more men die, but are able to spread their seed more. So the balance stays around 1:1.
Initially (due to higher female mortality rates) the balance isn't 1:1; it's like 1:0,8 or some shit. But this becomes balanced back to 1:1 because more males will die throughout their lives than females (and die sooner).
|
|
|
On June 03 2017 11:58 Uldridge wrote:
But think about this: "genes" for spreading male-producing tendencies makes no sense, because the chances of being male or female stays 50% you won't have xy sperm that suddenly swims 10% faster than the xx sperm, because that's what the only difference between both is. You'd need to have an unevenness in structure of the different sexed sperm. Where all the difference would need to be between an x and y chromosome. More men just don't magically appear like that.
If it were evolutionary selected for to have babies at 1.5:1 ratio, I'm sure there are plenty of ways nature could make that happen.
|
On June 03 2017 16:24 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 11:58 Uldridge wrote:
But think about this: "genes" for spreading male-producing tendencies makes no sense, because the chances of being male or female stays 50% you won't have xy sperm that suddenly swims 10% faster than the xx sperm, because that's what the only difference between both is. You'd need to have an unevenness in structure of the different sexed sperm. Where all the difference would need to be between an x and y chromosome. More men just don't magically appear like that. If it were evolutionary selected for to have babies at 1.5:1 ratio, I'm sure there are plenty of ways nature could make that happen.
Indeed. Once again, weird bugs that grow up in their mothers. They always have 1 male and 3-8 pregnant females be born from one mother. Not random amounts of males and females. So it obviously is possible to not have 1:1 ratios.
But the above evolutionary argument makes sense. I was looking at it from a species perspective, not from an individual one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
