Our species is declining because we've eliminated natural selection, allowing every single person an eventual shot at reproduction, not because society has set some standards for attractiveness. Though I doubt the decline is actually so bad that it needs worrying about.

We don't need superhumans when we have MILLIONS OF THEM.

We've just moved from playing Terrans to playing Zerg.
Darwin wouldn't mind.

Superhumanity doesn't necessarily fall in step with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is whatever survives. Look at insects and arthropods, they exist in huge numbers. (I think) They have more biomass than humanity, and they are still a pretty hardy family of critters.

Look at dinosaurs! They were huge towering monstrosities, and the carnivorous ones were some of the most powerful creatures to ever exist! Stupid meteor wiped them out.

There's something to be said for being many instead of massive.

cockroaches alone have more biomass

I thought I had read that somewhere. Can't remember for the life of me where. Probably in high school biology.

To clarify, the decline of our genetics is not necessarily due to everyone getting a shot at reproduction, but rather that our reproductive standards have become warped. Our idea of attractive is trending away from what would best propagate our species. Most models of high-class beauty really are reproductively inferior. The ability to reproduce is, after all, what beauty is supposed to indicate.

I'm discussing these concepts because this thread has mostly just been terribly uninteresting. Also, it's not as if I actually care about what I'm talking about. It's just entertaining to think too much about a subject that thus far has been "boobs or ass?"

Hm, that's another way of saying we're screwing natural selection in the face. But selective breeding is morally wrong, even though from a logical standpoint it is correct. Trouble is picking the logical option here would make you a nazi (sort of, anyway, the master race and all), and we can't suddenly change what "attractive" means.
Besides, we're utterly incapable of surviving in the wild anymore, so traits that would ensure the perpetuation of the species are slowly becoming useless, since, again, everyone survives to reproduce.

Natural selection is still going on -- it's just acting a bit more subtely, and in a different direction than before.

It used to be all about life and death; you needed to be able to run fast or else you get eaten by a lion. Normally that's not so bad but you'd get eaten by a lion well before making babies.

In this age that isn't a threat anymore, but there are still many things that affect your reproduceability. Some of them are natural (being born butt ugly reduces your child-rearing possibilities), and being born stupid is similarly there. Some people are horribly clumsy and some are horrible jerks. Pretty much any "negative" personality/body/person trait is going to end up reducing your chances for reproduction.

Selfishness also works against you. I value my time and money so much that I don't want kids. Neither does my girlfriend. Not trying to brag here, but I'm really nice, intelligent, and not clumsy nor a jerk - yet I'm not going to reproduce either.

People that do better in life also have higher chances of reproduction - it's easier to get laid if you are the PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD, but you can only become the president of the world if you have the chops for it. That will mean that - over time - people that have more working skills and education are going to end up having more babies.

I'm using extreme examples to make the point, but you can interpolate the results down to any minute detail. If you don't know who played Center for the Chicago Bulls last year there's at least one woman/man out there who isn't going to have your baby now.

Isn't this kind of off topic?

No, but that was. sometimes conversation naturally steers in various directions, go with the flow, don't worry about it. IF you are super concerned hit that report button.

Fake E: I also like redheads. I think it's because I'm particularly attracted to "different" -- people that stand out. I don't know a single girl that's redhead and I know none with florescent green eyes, but guaghlahglhaglh

I think that applies to everyone.

I think there's a genetic predisposition to wanting to diversify the gene pool, so yeah. But some people are nurtured to shun differences, and it kinda hurts the whole "master race" thing if all the tall blonde blue-eyed people are making out with brunettes with brown eyes.

You just have to go to [insert racist town name here, probably from southern US] to see that "different" isn't always "attractive."

Thailand is a good example: They are brought up to believe that white folk are "attractive" and their brownish skin is bad. They have flat noses naturally but 1 in 4 thai women get nose jobs at some point to look more "western." They have billboards advertising skin-whitening products. It's kinda creepy.

There might be a political/financial element there, since if tourists are *ahem* "welcomed" and "well cared for", then they'll spend more time, and therefore money.

Ever wonder why (western/white) tourists are so well cared for? Our bros from africa have a tough time getting through the border no matter what the country of citizenship they have. White backpacker with no money will probably get a 1 year visa with free renewals on request.

It's not a money/tourism thing. Even in a remote village where a tourist has never set foot, all the little girls are taught to believe their life will not be complete until they marry a white guy. Even if that means finding a white guy and bringing them back to the village or leaving for some other country.

Their cultural stuff is really, really screwed up. It's kinda sad. (I know two peeps that live there)

Isn't that because marrying a foreign white guy would mean that they'd have more money than if they'd stay home?