So why they are so many ugly women that bitch about porn?

They’re not the potential “victim” of exploitation. No body want to exploit them. Ugly women are, for all practical purposes, males. If they work well, then great. But we don’t really look at ugly women as sex objects unless we’re really desperate do we?

Perhaps the issue is not exploitation. The real issue is competition. Those so called exploitations are mutually beneficial as anything consensual.

That’s why many pretty girls don’t mind. And that’s the problem. Males want only the pretty. Deep inside the ugly want to be “exploited” too.
But they’re not getting it and feel envy against pretty goddess that are exploited.

A man with hammer will want to leave in the world where everything is nail. People want the world that match their talent more. If a woman is pretty, they’re more likely to be liberal and support womens’ right to show of skin. I mean they’re pretty anyway. In those world, beauty matters.

If women are ugly, they support burgha.

Sneaky ha?

For example, from pure Creationism to pure evolution, we can have the following strains.

1.      Intelligence Design. God created every species from scratch.

2.      Incompetent Design. God created every species. However, he’s not so powerful that he got it right the first time. So he created a lot of target practices and then copies the blueprint for those target practices for better masterpieces. These “Gods” maybe genetic engineers from Alien species rather than a Christian God. At least for some species, namely the genetically modified food, we know it’s true.

3.      Guided evolution. God doesn’t create new species. He just guides evolution. So species show up by it self, and then God says, “Ah ha… I don’t like the Canaanites, so I help the Israelites to slaughter them all.” Perhaps latter He said, “Ah ha, I don’t like the nephilim, here comes the flood.” After a while, the species that survive in the gene pool are the one that God prefer.

4.      Pure evolution. There was never a God. Life happened by it self.

You know what; from all 4 I don’t know what’s right. The option 3 is particularly danger. Imagine if your brother got murdered. The murderer can argue that it happens because God does not like your brother and prefer the murderer to survive in the gene pool.

Attributing atrocities to God rather than aspects we can control, such as lack of punishment toward murderers can leads to extreme situation.

Politically savvy murderers can then murder a lot of people avoiding the natural political costs. That’ll set precedence that’ll eventually make us kill each other.

Guess what, people do use that technique all over the world.

After Muhammad killed a lot of Jews (Banu Nadir), for example, he argued that God told him that the Jews plotted to kill him.

Given lack of evidence against the Jews besides those supernatural claims, many people believe Muhammad anyway.

Of course, to be fair to the Muslim, I must say that the same “trick” is used by so many other religions/atheists too. My Mom, for example, told me that the slaughtering of Canaanites is justified because God said so. The Genghis Khan argued that God granted him a mission to subdue those who refused to submit to him (with the exception of Mamelukes, I guess). Christians witch hunter also used religions to justify killing witches, pagans, and Jews. The Jews themselves had their share of genocide when they’re winning war.

It seems that humans like to kill each other. We just need a good justification for that and religions provide good hard to check justification.

This is the same reason, why many countries are secular. Secular countries protect innocents from unverifiable accusations and hence can more properly align their people’s interests to prosperity. Hence, secular countries, nowadays, tend to be stronger and richer.

Finally, vestigial DNA and vestigial organ shows that at least one possibility is impossible. Number 1. As I explained in http://genetips.com/2007/08/19/is-life-created/archive.htm.

For example, if we see two religions, Christianity and Islam, we see some common thread. For example, they both argue that we will go to heaven or hell based on what we believe.

They both claim that the greatest sin is believing in a different doctrine than the official fate.

For example, in ancient time, the Catholic and the Arian duke it out to each other over whether Jesus is similar (Homoi Ousion) with God or the same (Homo Ousion).

The doctrines only differ in one letter. In Islam, those who will never get out of hell are those who believe that God has someone “equal” to him.

This similarity can be easily explained by natural selection. Whatever sells in Europe sells in Arab too.

However, living creatures have many equivalent ways to create amino acids. Also DNA between genes does not affect natural selection in anyway. It doesn’t even affect the phenotype.

Any similarities between the humans and chimpanzees on those areas can then only be explained by common ancestors. Humans’ genes must have been somehow, “copy” of the genes of the Chimpanzes ancestors.

This is simply a stronger argument for vestigial organs. Years ago, proponent of evolution theory points out that vestigial organs show that species are not created independently.

Religious opponents then argue that every vestigial organ have uses. They argue, for example, that humans’ tail bone is very useful.

Many people have had their tail bones amputated without serious problem. Still proponent of evolution theory has a much better weapon now. It’s not vestigial organ. It’s vestigial DNA. DNA that do not affect phenotype in anyway and hence cannot possibly be useful. Any similarities on those DNAs are almost proof that we are not independently created.

Reliance on faith and extreme punishment for believing in a different doctrine is a mark of many best selling religions all over the world.

However, it doesn’t explain other similarities between Christianity and Islam. There are similarities that do not affect natural selection. For example, the usage of Abraham as a prophet in those 2 religions. We can then guess that Christianity and Islam must have some form of common ancestors. We do. Namely, Judaism.

Now, back to the unexplained similarities. We are not independently created. Are we created at all?

Well, I didn’t know. I saw strong evidences that we’re not. At least, until I saw the square watermelon in Japan. That’s the product of genetic engineering.

Yap. Some lives are indeed created by intelligent design. Those genetic engineers are pretty intelligent to me.

So perhaps, we have a creator. Perhaps the creator allows creatures to evolve naturally most of the time. Once in a while, he created a jump. What ever have happened, we’ll know much more about it soon I guess.

According to http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html, Dr. Francis S. Collins support the idea that homosexuality is not hard wired.

The heritability of homosexuality is “only” 20%. That is, the probability that an identical twin raised independently will be homosexual if the other one is will be 20%.

First of all, that is much higher than the “normal” probability of 2-3%.

Hence, while homosexuality is obviously inheritable, it is not hardwired.

That raises a lot of question.

Let’s back to our first question. How can there still be gay people in the world.

It turns out that being homosexual does not decrease your gene pool survival rate as seriously as people have thought. What kicks you out of the gene pool is lack of success in mating with the opposite sex, not strong desire for to mate with the same sex.

In other word, impotence will kick you out of the gene pool way faster than bisexuality.

However, for most males, homosexuality is either a yes or no. While many women are bisexual, men are either homosexual or heterosexual with few between. At least according to Kinsey’s in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports.

Still according to Francis statement, heritability of homosexuality is only 20%. So whatever genes that “cause” homosexuality will only kick you out of the gene pool 20% of the time, at most. That gene may come in package with other edge, like better male bonding skills, or better artistic skills, etc.

All in all, we have impotence, suicidal, and poor males. It’s not strange to see gay people as a normal variation. In fact, homosexuality won’t hurt your gene pool survival much more than say, monogamy. The former will simply reduce the number of your potential mate from 1 to 0, rather than the normal number of 1000.

What truly surprises me is why so many religious bigots oppose homosexuality so much?

I’ve never heard religions condemn impotence, or lack of money making skills, or lack of promiscuity.

Why they need common enemies?

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. When we’re not at war, we’re in peace. But peace means competition. Each male wants as many females as possible. When one male get plenty the other don’t get any.

So, when one male is successful, the other will get in the way. Most societies in the world then have various laws prohibiting success. Women prefer the rich, and hence the communists prohibit wealth. The religious conservatives also prohibit various free sex. That’s because freedom means competition and some people are simply not sexually competitive.

Each human want to maximize their gene pool proportion in their favor. That aspect of life is always a zero sum game. Hence, peace is not a more pareto optimal solution than war.

Imagine a country with 2 citizens, Bob and John. Say Bob is superior to John. During war, Bob will have better tactics, better strategy, and kill John. During peace, Bob will have better businesses, better stock prediction, more money, and attract more females than John. So, either in peace or war, Bob will survive in the gene pool.

Hence, there isn’t really any preference between Bob and John to support peace. The outcome of peace and war is the same anyway, the superior win.

Things get a little bit more complicated, and realistic, when people are superior in different areas. For example, say John predicts stocks better, and Bob fights better. Obviously Bob prefers war and John prefers peace if both care only about their gene pool survival.

During peace, John will make more money and attract more women. During war, Bob will beat the shit out of John and mate with more women. Because peace requires both to agree while war requires only the initiative of one side, war is then a more natural outcome.

That is why we have so many wars over so many strange reasons. People have been fighting due to different religious doctrines, intolerance of consensual acts, or a small piece of resources, such as land.

I call it a small piece of resources because the market value of the land is often much less than the amount of military expenditure spent to acquire it that no business minded political leader would invest for war campaign over the land. The true purpose of war is then to snuff off male surplus on those countries.

Yet there is hope. That hope is the desire for higher standard of living. Love of money, is then the root of all peace.

For evolutionary purposes, war and peace make little different. Some people will survive better in the gene pool anyway whether they are at war or at peace. In fact, many people will survive better in the gene pool through war than through peace.

However, war and peace make one big different. Peace leads to higher standard of living for both sides.

Here, even though Bob fights better, Bob would realize that he’ll have higher standard of living if he choose peace with John. That means he’ll survive less in the gene pool, but the higher standard of living may make up for it more. So Bob then want peace too.

Interestingly, people sense of morality, in regards to porn and war, tend to be negatively correlated. Peace protestors are often naked, which would offend highly (self declared) righteous people like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

The religious militants, on the other hand, would often kill a lot of civilians, which would offend civilians a lot.

So, which one is right?

Perhaps, rather than trying to decide which one is right or wrong, it’s better to just observe and understand how different humans’ interests motivate different algorithms to classify right from wrong. (more…)

He made many arguments. To explain why people are religious, we would expect that religions would serve ones’ gene pool survival.

It doesn’t seem to be that way. Religions, for example, teach us how to

“…devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolized medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion….”

Dawkins argues that religions may work as placebo (meagerly). Perhaps, religions promote group selection theory (which is partially true).

Perhaps, religions are just stupid remnants that we still have that used to work. That is true, but only in countries in England, where Dawkins live, as I shall show.

But all his arguments only meagerly touch the surface why people are religious.

Polygamy allows those with under represented, hence rare and valuable, talent to survive better in the gene pool. Prostitution allow those who serve the market more to simply used the money they earn fairly to hire women to create more productive individuals.

Sex laws against consensual sex, like anti prostitution and anti polygamy is slow genocide against those who are able and willing to pay for reproduction. Those are the kind of people that won’t bother the rest of us with welfare.

Why do you think the Jews and Mormon are model minority? Where are the smart among everyone else? They’re gone, because smart monks can’t even get married.

When unproductive people want to breed 12 kids, it’s legal because it’s humans’ right. That right, of course, implies the right to force the rest of us to support their kids. Even the poor liberal often prefer to have higher standard of living than making more kids. That’s why they instinctively want drugs legalization, gay right, and “pro-choice.” We’re losing money without making them happy. It’s a highly inefficient appeasement.

Yet, when rich smart males want to beget as many kids as he can afford, then virtually all ways become immoral. The billionaires cannot just pay women for sex because of anti prostitution law. Anti polygamy laws means they cannot have more than one wife. Child support laws are set up proportional to a man’s wealth rather than the need of a child. If child support law is 20% of your income per kids, for example, then no matter how rich you are you can’t afford more than 5 kids.

All these are not very surprising, when we understand that deep inside, less capable individuals crave the extermination of those more capable than them. That’s why people like Hitler became so popular.

Contemporary definition of sin in any religion is no longer acts that hurt others. Nowadays, sins mean success. When men successfully, and honestly, make money and mate with many females, suddenly that’s sin. The same happen to men that show “unusual capability.”

That’s why the mob free Barabas and demand Jesus to be put to death. That’s why religious leaders preach forgiveness toward thieves, burglars, and murderers while demanding heavy punishment for men that successfully, honestly, and consensually make a lot of money and mate with many females.

Living as the best and brightest is best or bust. They often do things differently, which mean they can be very successful, or fail up miserably. Unless the successful among them do not make many kids, they won’t make enough kids to compensate for the failure among them. Soon, they’ll be gone. The horde of evil parasites will simply become more and more. With huge voting power, they’ll simply want more and more.

That answer would soon lead to two other questions.
1. How does prohibition of prostitution protect marriage more than prohibition of other forms of free sex?
2. Why bother protecting marriage? A better question would be, “Why some people bother protecting marriage institution?”

Prohibition of prostitution protects marriage because prostitution directly competes with marriage institution. We all want to have sex. Some want us to have sex within marriage. So those people tend to oppose all sex outside marriage.

Prostitution is special because among all sex outside marriage, prostitution is the one directly competing with marriage the most. That’s because marriage is a form of prostitution.

A kid asks his dad, “Dad, how much does it cost to get married?” Daddy says, “I don’t know son. I am still paying.” That’s what marriage is all about. Men pay for sex.

But of course marriage is not just a regular prostitution. Marriage has other features. Some call it, “sacredness”, “holiness”, “love”, blab la, etc.

In other words, marriage is a regular prostitution plus a bunch of irrational bullshits.

Those bullshits give governments various justifications to interfere in marriage with various restrictive rules, such as prohibition of polygamy to ration females in equal share for every one. Such restrictive rules, cause market distortion.

Now, all market distortion profits somebody right?

Minimum wage, for example, hurt productivity as a whole. However it benefits some workers, causing unemployment for the others, and hurt businessmen. So those some workers that are benefited support minimum wage.

Protection to failing industry benefits the owners of those failing industry while preventing technological progress. Still some people support such protection and subsidy.

So, it’s natural then to expect that someone, somewhere, somehow, want to protect marriage institution so much. That’s because they survive better in the gene pool when such restrictions exist than if they don’t.

Without marriage, some alpha males will mate with all the women. With marriage, the non alpha males get women too. So non alpha males prefer marriage so much.

This one looks reasonably objective to me.

It would be interesting to see what sort of “Prisoner of War” Hezbollah want to free. As far as I know, they try to free a fighter that fight during peace rather than war, and hence should be classified as terrorists or criminals rather than Prisoner of War.

Israel agreed to release some terrorists in exchange or Ron Aran. Ron was a pilot that attacked Lebanon also during peace time.

That’s not helpful. Why kill civilians and free terrorists? Civilians have no bargaining position for their release while terrorists have.