video: Anonymous asks: Degeneracy is Flooding the World?

How we have escaped the dangers of nature only to bring about a greater hell than imagined.

Watch:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7aHdh3bo2L5t/

Hello everyone. Today I'm taking a question from the inbox. Anonymous writes in with a question about degeneracy.

The question reads as,
"It took a long time for humans to evolve to where we are now. Don't you think it should also take a long time for society to become significantly degenerate?"

Interesting question, and the short answer is no, but let's think about your question. Yes it did take a very long time for humans to evolve into what we are today.

I suppose you're thinking of the evolution of humans like some guy walking along, progressing and moving forward, and then at some point he begins sliding backward. Like maybe going back to an earlier stage or something. And that perhaps the rate of forward verses backward movement is somehow balanced in both directions.

A metaphor like this would be wrong in many ways. To understand a more accurate metaphor, and what the big problem is, we need to look at 1) mutations and 2) evolutionary pressures.

Between every generation, there are some amount of genetic mutations that occur. There are 3 categories of mutations, which are: harmful, neutral, and beneficial.

I'll link to a document that talks about this in the description.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/rates.html

It can be estimated that of all total mutations, Neutral mutations are about 50%. Harmful mutations 45%, and Beneficial mutations a mere 5%. Though, the precise percentages aren't really important.

The important thing to understand is that the odds of mutations being neutral or harmful is high, and the odds of a mutation resulting in a beneficial trait is low.

So with mutations being understood, now we come to 2) evolutionary pressures and natural environment. In a natural environment, most harmful mutations are quickly weeded out of the species, and most beneficial mutations will thrive and spread. If a fish has a mutation giving it a better immunity to disease, then it is more likely that fish will live to have offspring. But if the opposite happens, and the fish gets a mutation for worse disease immunity, then it is likely that fish will die and not have the chance to reproduce. The fish is dead, and death is the most common way that nature eliminates harmful mutations from the gene pool. When fish have offspring in a natural environment, less than 50% survive to become adults.

So let's think of an experiment. We could take 2 pairs of fish (a male and female each pair) and drop them into clean tanks of water with no predators, and feed them regularly, and they breed and flourish, and have an incredible 90% of their offspring survive. Does the 90% survival success of these offspring mean that the offspring somehow have higher beneficial mutations than they would in a natural environment? The answer is of course not. They have nearly the same harmful and beneficial mutations as they would have received in a natural environment. And releasing these fresh offspring back into their natural environment would result in the majority of them dieing.

So here's the twist. In an artificial environment, we now have a new category of harmful mutations. We can call this new category, "harmful mutations in disguise". So what used to be 45% harmful mutations, we can now divide into two categories, an estimated 10% harmful, and 35% "harmful in disguise". Living in an artificial environment allows far more of the offspring to survive, and there are no strong evolutionary pressures. Therefore many offspring with "harmful mutations in disguise" can grow to be full adults.

Now let's keep these fish in the tank for a bit longer. Remove the original parents, and let the offspring grow to adults and have offspring of their own. An amazing 90% of the offspring survive again. But something is happening that we aren't able to visually see, but requires a some knowledge of math to understand. If the last generation had large amounts of harmful mutations in disguise, and they weren't removed from the gene pool, then those mutations become stacked on top of the mutations of the next generation. With every generation these harmful mutations in disguise increase, and in an artificial environment there is nothing to remove them from the gene pool.

Over time, the more generations of fish having offspring in this artificial environment, the less likely it becomes that any of them could ever survive in their natural environment again. Over many generations in an artificial environment, the gene pool eventually becomes flooded with these harmful mutations in disguise.

As a side note, in an artificial environment, of course there will be beneficial mutations as well, but because of the small probabilities of beneficial mutations, they cannot compete with the sheer number of harmful mutations that will occur. (Also, in a natural environment, more beneficial mutations would become revealed, and therefore be passed on to the next generations.)

By now I hope you're beginning to understand how this relates back to the human species, and the danger that is growing. It's true that as humans, we humans don't live in an entirely artificial environment. Thankfully the technology for an entirely artificial human environment hasn't been invented yet.

None the less, we do live in a semi-artificial environment, and the impact of this may be bigger than we think. In 2003, a heat wave in France killed 15,000 people.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-extreme-heat-overwhelms-your-body-and-becomes-deadly/

15,000 people died because they simply didn't have air conditioning. Humans are living too disconnected from nature and it is rapidly threatening the very existence of our species.

Around the world, more and more women are giving birth via cesarean section. 1 out of 3 of births in the USA are now done through cesarian section, and the numbers are growing every year. It's regretful for me to say this, but if a woman is unable to give birth via her vagina, then she is severely degenerate. She should not be having children. Please do look up the alarming statistics of cesarian births.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/10/11/health/c-section-rates-study-parenting-without-borders-intl/index.html

Going back to the story of the fish. In a natural environment, many offspring die. But in the artificial environment, a large percentage of the offspring are able to survive and reproduce. Instead of harmful mutations being discovered quickly and eliminated, harmful mutations are disguised and allowed to continue on and multiply. When harmful mutations are disguised, they do not get eliminated. They begin flooding the entire gene pool, and we all affected.

How can I say this in a politically correct way? The infant mortality rate of humans is far too low. Analyzing data from centuries ago, it is estimated that in the lives of our ancestors, that as much as a quarter of children died within their first year of life.
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

That's a sad reality, but in the end, it is literally the choice between that and species extinction, because that's the direction we are heading. Degenerates flooding the gene pool will destroy us all. At some point none of us will be able to survive with nature. Children today are being born in an artificial environment of medicine and vaccinations. Immunities to diseases are decreasing with every generation. Children have physical deformities like: defective spleen, infected appendix, missing anus, and dozens more degeneracies. Children that would naturally die are being surgically modified to allow continued life. These individuals have harmful mutations, and yet walk among us as normal people. You cannot identify them in a crowd. They could be that person that was flirting with you yesterday. Then you go on to have children with them, and this is how it floods the entire gene pool, and we are all negatively affected.

I want to conclude by saying this, I'm not saying that we should go back to living in the jungle, and I'm not saying we should throw away all medicine and technology. There can be healthy balance between nature and technology. Instead of perpetuating the inferior qualities of man, technology must be used to enhance the superior qualities of man. Be the superior human. Instead of looking for a mate with the biggest chest and ass, perhaps seek a mate with higher genetic qualities.

For more on this topic, you can chat with me on the Matrix network, follow me on Steemit, Mastodon/Gab, and Minds networks.

I wish blessings to all my brothers and sisters.

VidarReturns

Previous Video: Cathedral of Egalitarianism and Human Extinction
https://steemit.com/dtube/@vidarreturns/9vv7e5nubwc

Life Guide coming soon: First Principals of Vidar

FOLLOW
YouTube:
https://youtube.com/channel/UCaBv_oy3z60jf9JZ1fQJJWQ/videos

Steemit:
https://steemit.com/@vidarreturns

Minds:
https://www.minds.com/v07644

Matrix Chat Room:
Vidar Returns
https://matrix.org #v6893:matrix.org

Hubzilla:
https://ussr.win/channel/vidarreturns

Gab Mastodon:
https://gab.com/VidarReturns