Hey /sci/, I wanted to start a thread regarding erectile dy

>>8637074
>it's better to continue having sick babuies with low quality sperm than to become voluntarily infertile.

Not sure that's true when dealing with societies of people that experience kin selection.

>>8637083
The argument of the selfish gene hypothesis is that human societies are NEVER kin selected. We are only kin selected insofar as it benefits the transmission of our own genes. If, as a result of my own poor quality sperm, I can no longer get an erection, and my younger brother has twice the children I have, then you have an argument. But that simply isnt the case; me continuing to have children has no effect on my younger male relatives fertility, males are typically the sole provider of a stone age family.

At any rate, even if it were true, wouldn't evolution select for males who could retain high quality sperm into old age?

Another point, why then do we see psychological impotence? One's mental health would have nothing to do with his sperm quality.

>>8637095
>me continuing to have children has no effect on my younger male relatives fertility

You clearly aren't thinking about this in an unbiased fashion. The answer is obvious...

The answer is you producing low quality children will divert resources away from your brother's healthy children. By and large human reproduction has not been limited by fertility, but by resources available to sustain someone to adulthood.

If you having and caring for 3 children who are sickly and need lots of resources, it could cause your relatives children to starve. Resource scarcity exists and additional males in a given space don't get the same marginal gain in resources collected.

>males who could retain high quality sperm into old age

Well, relatively we can. Men can reproduce successfully into their 60's. Contrast that with women.

>Psychological impotence

Probably really complex. My guess is having to do with social hierarchy and selecting so the most alpha has the best chance of breeding. Essentially a male being put into a situation that is extremely demeaning shuts off their capacity to breed because they don't possess qualities conducive to being at the top of the social ladder.

A thought I've had along these lines is why we are aroused when we see other people mating (monkeys for example masturbate while watching the alpha mate with a female), is again kin selection. They're similar enough in genetic profile that it still takes an effect, even if they aren't direct brothers or nuclear family, being part of the same tribe generally guarantees you are closely related (The extreme version of this effect being the basis of how ant colonies and bee hives work.)

>>8637074
after getting fat i think i have ED

>>8637118
>Probably really complex. My guess is having to do with social hierarchy and selecting so the most alpha has the best chance of breeding. Essentially a male being put into a situation that is extremely demeaning shuts off their capacity to breed because they don't possess qualities conducive to being at the top of the social ladder.

But again, this hypothesis is clearly wrong. Picture yourself as a gene inside the body of a low status male. Your sole goal in life is to get into the next generation. You couldn't give a shit what the alpha is doing; and you are definitely not going to stop attempting to reproduce to allow the alpha to hog all the women. You're going to do everything in your power to ensure you mate with and impregnate as many females as possible, willing or unwilling, alpha or not. The only way that would ever make sense is if you and the alpha were closely related.

The gene centric view of evolution makes psychologocial ED more than really complex, it seems almost inexplicable to me. It makes no sense.

>The answer is you producing low quality children will divert resources away from your brother's healthy children.

Thats what I was trying to get across in my last post. By and large, how would my sickly children divert resources from my brothers healthy children? If i didnt have kids, I wouldn't give my brothers kids all my resources. I simply wouldn't produce the resources at all. I'd put my feet up and retire.

>>8637134
>The gene centric view of evolution makes psychologocial ED more than really complex, it seems almost inexplicable to me. It makes no sense.

Your same reasoning makes the evolution of homosexuality impossible.

I think through kin-selection it can be explained. You are a gene that not only exists in a low quality male, but also in the high quality male. You exist in both. Your goal is to have as many successful offspring not just in the next generation, but all that follow. If this same gene heightens an alpha's sexuality (like oh say, money has been shown to heighten sex drive) but decrease an Omega's ability to breed you may give yourself better long term results.

But I think even that's leaving out a lot of it, as it probably has to do with sexual selection...(this caused another idea to occur to me, I'm just leaving my rambling).

Say you're a low status male and attempting to breed will get you killed by the high status male. No reproduction.

Say you carry a gene that causes you to be unable to reproduce in situations that make you aware of your status, but if conditions change and you find your situation improved, you gain self-esteem and can maintain an erection.

Perhaps it evolved as a safety mechanism to prevent low status males from getting killed in certain situations, leading them to be able to breed even decades later when their conditions change.

>If i didnt have kids, I wouldn't give my brothers kids all my resources.

Well, tribal communities generally had more communal resource shares than our modern day ideas of private property, anon. But I'm more worried you don't get gifts for your nieces and nephews.

>>8637160
>Your same reasoning makes the evolution of homosexuality impossible.

Yeah, the same thing occurred to me as I thought it. I figured it was best to solve one problem at a time.

>Well, tribal communities generally had more communal resource shares than our modern day ideas of private property, anon. But I'm more worried you don't get gifts for your nieces and nephews.

I'm the only one in my family with kids.