The only book written in the 21st century worth reading. Basically should be mandatory reading for any teenage male. Assured classic status

>>24477015 (OP)
>teenage
This shit is just grooming at this point. Everyone is an incel in their teens because you shouldn't be sleeping at that age

>>24477148
Yes you should. Every human having gone through puberty should reproduce and get it over with. We institutionalized putting off life an delaying being an authentic human later and later and later and later. People can't think about having kids until 20 years after they're supposed to and wonder why they're unhappy. Kikes and boomers need that line to go up and to the right and tell you you're evil if you commit any of their sins and indecencies, but their very greed goes unopposed at large. What a waste of a civilization. It's inhuman and antihuman right now. Death by stuffing our mouths full as opposed to the death of starvation the likes the Soviets would give you.

>>24477156
If pregnant at 15, the offsprings epigenetic memory includes zero education.
If pregnant at 30 with higher education, the offsprings epigenetic memory has full memory of everything learned by the mother within these additional 15 years.

Passed down DNA contains knowledge only of whatever people who had conceived contained in their brains at the time of conception.

There's evolutionary advantage to pregnancy at a later age.

This is called Lamarckism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism


>tldr: early pregnancy is dysgenic, evolutionary dead end

>kikes
Unworthy of a (you)

>>24477163
The epigenetic cancer and trauma of each generation gets given in full, more like, each generation is better off without the stifling chains and weights of the 7 generations prior

>>24477163
Pregnant at fifteen there are consequences for both the mother and the baby in terms of mental and physical health
Some teenagers are ripped up from it and unable to get pregnant again if they want more kids as adults.
Best age for children is mid to late twenties

>>24477163
Th-that’s not how epigenetics works anon

>>24477319
>t. pedo

>>24477148
>you shouldn't be sleeping at that age
kek
ask any popular female HS student if they have had sex.
should I tell you or do you wish to find out yourself?

>>24477163
No I will not procreate with older women.

>>24477386
When I was in high school girls were not having sex.

>>24477400
Which puts your offspring at a disadvantage over anyone who would. But you wouldn't care about it because you can't get it up and that's all that matters for you: not your offspring, not quality another life but yours

>>24477400
You will marry the silver vixen

>>24477163
>If pregnant at 30 with higher education, the offsprings epigenetic memory has full memory of everything learned by the mother within these additional 15 years.
How and how? Will I get results looking up epigenetic memory offspring?

>>24477418
why do two different people look different? because thousands years ago they did different thing, which made their genes diverge.
But what if they did a LOT of different things and not just few before conceiving another person?
Then divergenece would be higher.

>>24477425
Is that it? Nothing else? Funny, I expected a more complex process. It's funny, when I was a child, I did think about these things. Honestly, I wanted to go for a young woman. Seeing that it's kind of a disadvantage for the first child.

>>24477446
Did you check the wikipedia link I gave in my first post up above?

>>24477446
>In the 21st century, experimental results in the fields of epigenetics, genetics, and somatic hypermutation demonstrated the possibility of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of traits acquired by the previous generation. These proved a limited validity of Lamarckism.

>>24477407
It's either location or generational changes. Trauma-ridden and fatherless gen Z girls have already been groomed since age 12 online, the shy ones get out of it, the extroverted, popular girls perennially remain seeking male attention causing substance abuse and being dicked down by the age of 16 if not at younger ages. Ask yourself why abortion is such a big deal today

>>24477407
Okay boomer.

(they were, btw)

>>24477448
No, because I write /shoot first and ask questions later. 'murica.
>>24477453
>limited validity
That's sufficient for me, I will now life my life according to lamarckism.

>>24477489
#notall

>>24477400
Sorry brother, you have to fuck the hags. I don't make the rules

>>24477570
>one didn't
Okay, enjoy your gold star, Timmy.

>>24477163
Roastie cope.

>>24477163
What makes you think women learn lessons that make them better and not lessons that make them worse?

>>24477454
>>24477407
Surveys say Generation Z (both male and female) are statistically having less sex than the generations before them.
This is backed up by teenage pregnancy rates being lower than ever.

>>24478469
They live through the smartphone

>>24477163
disingenuous retard alert
false dichotomy married to a total lack of understanding of genetics
general risk of birth defects is lowest with maternal age 20-24 and women are generally suboptimally fertile by 30

Inceldom is this century greatest paradigm

>>24478469
what explains this?

>>24477015 (OP)
Your mistake is you think being *right* matters.

>>24478567
>general risk of birth defects is lowest with maternal age 20-24 and women are generally suboptimally fertile by 30
This isn't the claim.
The claim is that pregnancies must be postponed as much as possible right up to before it becomes suboptimal, so in the mean time women should pursue education.
>20-24
24 it is then, but in no way 18, 20 or 22 even.

>>24478609
There were a bunch of claims made by that pile of nonsense, all of which are destroyed by the numbers regarding fetal health conditioned on maternal age
>The claim is that pregnancies must be postponed as much as possible right up to before it becomes suboptimal
>24 it is then, but in no way 18, 20 or 22
You haven't bothered to look at, let alone analyze, enough evidence to claim anything with any confidence
Sociological factors have fucked with this utterly, but if one has sufficient wealth/stability, 21 is likely to be the maternal first birth biological ideal

>>24478621
>all of which are destroyed by the numbers regarding fetal health conditioned on maternal age
None of which are addressed by your numbers regarding fetal health conditioned on maternal age

I unironically want an apocalypse to happen. This world is too comfortable, too decadent to not deserve punishment. Genetic determinism is existential.

>>24477156
I hate children

>>24477015 (OP)
Read Schopenhauer, grow up.

>>24478815
Through technological magic we can have schoppenhauer read his very own books... Oh, dang...

>>24477407
Oh they were, just not with you.

>>24477015 (OP)
Too damaging to social fabric for it to ever be common reading or vox populi.
>>24477148
Where I live most people begin being sexually active at a pretty young age, very young. Usually. It's pretty dismal, really. But so is the nature of man.

>>24477163
>>24477298
none of you retards know what epigenetics are

>>24479637
histone modifications cannot encode memory. that said, ~30 year olds do make better mothers and are also better life partners

>>24477015 (OP)
Mandatory reading if you never want to see a vagina

>>24477148
>Everyone is an incel in their teens because you shouldn't be sleeping at that age
The antinatalist psyop in full display, everyone. The fact that I don't know whether this is an ironic take or not I think is proof we're too far gone.

>>24477407
Kek I wish I was still this innocent.

>>24478649
>says "early pregnancy is dysgenic", where by 'early' the poster means 'under 30'
the linear increase in birth defects associated with increasing maternal age outright contradicts this, retard

>>24479836
>where by 'early' the poster means 'under 30'
I never defined what I mean by early, merely gave you a round number in comparison with pregnancy at 15.
Now I will: early is before 25.

>>24479841
20-24 is biologically superior and you'd have to throw out an impossibly large mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise
fuck outta here

>>24479798
Anti natalism is a thing alright, but there are teens thst don't have sex. I have no idea how often teens nowadays do it, but from what I learned the other day, youngsters have less sex than like 30 years ago.

>>24479855
That evidence was compiled merely to push it higher outta 14-16 yo range, which was considered the norm in the past.

The true redpill is that Lamarckism is literally correct, and best way to ensure your offsprings intelligence is to have it even later than 25 AFTER both parents grinding education for years and graduating.

I never had much sex, but I did get a blowjob at 17, and actual sex at 18. I remember being so relieved at the time, not because I had sex, because the sex itself wasn't all that great, but because I could say I lost my virginity as a teenager.

Looking back, I was right to feel such relief. Lack of pussy really deranges you. I don't even mean in the sense that it turns you into a misogynist, which a man can arrive at honestly through a thousand different avenues, but in some sort of general, unspecified way that I can't even put into words-- it truly deranges you.

Good luck, incels.

>>24478595
9/11

>>24479437
What?

>>24477400
You VILL have the sex with the older females
And you VILL be happy

>>24480114
Yes Sir

>>24477015 (OP)
Is there anything in there that you wouldn't already get from random redpill and blackpill youtube videos like hypergamy and lookism?

If you didn’t lose your virginity between the ages of 15-17, you’re doomed to a life of being mentally stunted

>>24477386
You proved his point tho.
Teenagers shouldn't be sleeping at that age yet they do and that's why modern dating is a mess.
The trend is starting to reverse tho, less teenagers nowadays are having sex compared to teenagers from a decade ago.

>>24480835
He published this book in 2018 or something, way before incel content truly blew up on YT

>>24479889
bullshit
go look up the modal age at which wealthy women in the late 18th century were having their first kid

>>24478469
>>24478595
MySpace adn Facebook

>>24478693
You actually just want the apocalypse to happen because you're a pathetic loser.

>>24480948
I can confirm. I lost mine at 23. I even went through a slut phase right after finding out that some women could find me kind of attractive. But hooking up with random girls at parties wasn't enough. Got so addicted to sex that I even started paying prostitutes for sex regularly. I'm 28 now and I feel like I'll never get out of the incel mentality. I cheat on my girlfriend regularly and I know it's wrong yet I can't bring myself to feel bad about it. I just naturally feel completely justified every time I act egotistically. Sometimes I feel like I could make it a goal to fuck one hundred very attractive women and then I'll finally make up for my failed adolescence, that maybe then I will finally be "normal", but I know that's not how it works and that, in reality, it doesn't matter how many holes I get to fuck, nothing will ever change the fact that I missed out on having an adolescence.

>>24480948
This is the case for males. Women get intellectually stronger if they remain chaste. My autistic aunt is an engineer and admitted she is still a virgin

>>24477489
>>24478469
This; I am in my early twenties and gay with a large group of girls
They admit what they don't admit to men who are straight around me. Most of the girls my age are virgins

>>24482337
There are so many ways that people try to make up for a wasted, misspent, or absent youth, and most of them don't revolve around sex. Look at all the grown men fixated on collecting Pokemon cards, for example - they were unable to satisfy their desires to collect all the rare and shiny cards the first time around, and now despite having vastly more agency and income and a much bigger collection than their child selves could ever imagine, they continue to sink more and more time and resources into the hobby. Satisfaction can never be retroactive.

>>24481707
Case in point, your apathetic dismissal betrays the very anomie you claim to deplore.

>>24478595
Plenty of Fish

>>24483670
Nah, I just recognize when someone's value as a person is in the negatives.

>>24481707
Yes

>>24477015 (OP)
Did you read it? Is it a meme or is it readable? Looks interesting

personally if i had to raise a teenage boy i would have him read selected passages from plato and inspiring stories from history rather than feeding him angsty demoralisation slop. but maybe that's just me.

>>24484455
he'd hate you for it

>>24482337
>"incel"
>has a girlfriend that he cheats on regularly
absolute state

>>24484461
nah because he wouldn't be a bitter melodramatic little bitch. even if life is pain, he wouldn't make whining his entire personality. he'd appreciate good times for what they are and tank through the rest like a boss, because that's just how we roll.

>>24484471
nah he'd hate you for it and everything you shoved down his throat. Would rebel against you.

>>24477163
you literally have no idea what epigenetics are

>>24477163
>epigenetic memory

>>24477015 (OP)
>culture war self help meme garbage but it's.....le based
This is 12 rules for life for zoomers

>>24477407
Anon, I...

>>24483278
How old are you?

>>24477163
Shills are out in force against this one, must be true.

>>24483670
>anomie
What an excellent word I had never encountered before. Thank you for using it, anon.

>>24479798
>discouraging sexual promiscuity among unwed teens is an antinatalist psyop
Go back

>>24480948
>lost mine at 18
Am I ngmi

>>24477156
Natalists are so retarded, this is hilarious.

>>24486886
Not as much as you. Euro cucks important illiterates by an industrial scale, just because wymnym want to have a career, e.g. go into adult care.

>>24477148
This lol. No seggs till marriage and no cheating after marriage. What's so hard to understand about this.
>>24477156
And who will raise the kids?

>>24486903
Inhale deeply 3 times before writing your next post

>>24486928
Brown cock liver detected
>must be burger

>>24486903
>n-n-no u
>proceeds to incomprehensibly sperg out
That was also funny. Thanks for the entertainment.

>>24482337

>>24487038
>anon reduced to a repeat current trending 0hrase machibe
Lol at you and sorry for your loss

>>24487073
Thanks.

>>24477148
Based and chastitypilled

>>24477163
>population halves every generation after tired middle aged mother sinks all time spoiling one siblingless brat

>>24477163
is this true?

>>24489364
Yesn't

>>24489364
What did your grandpa do? Can you do it without instruction?

>>24489364
This is true.
>>24489776
He will do it better than if his grandpa never did it.
It's not a direct inheritance of skill, duh

>>24489869
He won't. That's idiotic and has no grounding in the material world. Lamarck was a hack and the inheritance of epigentic markers is not inheritance of skill.

>>24489360
who gives a shit? fussing over reproduction rates is the business of eugenicists and racist schizophrenics.

>>24490156
I maintain he'll do it better, albeit so marginally that it's not worth fussing over.

Education, however... should be able to manifest itself in a few more IQ points. Either immediately or a few generations down the line.
We are our ancestors, except we are not what our ancestors had been after conceiving us, only prior.

>>24490168
>I maintain he'll do it better
Why? How? Epigenetics isn't philosophy or sociology, it's a branch of a hard science that, when it makes claims, produces them from experimentation. If you maintain he'll do it better, provide evidence.

>>24478595
the late 2000s were just too erotic.

>>24490168
why would you think the child of a master showing aptitude towards their parent's skill is a result of anything other than spending large amounts of time with a capable teacher for their entire youth?

>>24490174
for the same reason two identical organisms branched out 3.5 billion years ago, one because it was deep in water with little sunlight, the other - because it was in shallow water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance#cite_note-:22-1

>>24490179
large amounts of time spending doing things is THE environment that directly alters evolution of offsprings of that particular individual

>>24490206
The source in that article makes no claims about epigenetic responsibility for or even the existence of inherited disposition for skill or behavior.

>for the same reason two identical organisms branched out 3.5 billion years ago, one because it was deep in water with little sunlight, the other - because it was in shallow water.
Don't quote twee aphorisms about evolution at me you little shit, I did my undergrad in genetics. You know very well trait selection doesn't operate on individual scales.

>>24478469
Use your brain: How would you even measure that, retard? Polls? KEK

>>24478469
>This is backed up by teenage pregnancy rates being lower than ever.
That just means contraception and sex-ed got better

>>24490206
unless that job environment demands the physical adaptation of the body, no... it’s feasible that the child of a painter might inherit some epigentic markers that confer resistance to a toxic paint that they work with; it does not follow that they inherit skill at painting.

>>24490230
>#cite_note-:22-1
Linked that source note accidentally.
What about the wikipedia article itself? You read it? What's your verdict
>>24490241
uhh.. why not? our brain got a crapton of neurons that seem to arrange in a certain way that allows us to paint at 30 significantly better than at 15, so when that person conceives the offsprings brain is like 'hey, I got some ancestral data and I'll develop in accordance with it'

Black people run faster because they used to run in Savannahs all the time, white people got blonde hair because they ate blonde wheat and grains.

Why wouldn't it influence the brain, i.e. what we do intellectually? That article up above seems legit justifying this
To me, it seems like the Jews, nonces and sexpats with Russiah kolhoz wives are suppressing scientific consensus, but it seeps through anyway.

>>24490272
>uhh.. why not?
... there's no evidence for it? epigenetic markers attributing toxin, heat/cold, pollution, w/e resistance are well-documented. you can read about them. epigenetic markers conferring talent are not. it may be plausible, but that doesn't mean it's true, and i'm not going to accept something plausible as true without any proof that it is.

>>24490281
okay not talent
just raw brainpower, neuron activity.

Consider this, two identical islands, identical populations, A and B.

Island A had people who bred always at 20, never had education and were just chilling

Island B had people who bred always at 30, and were grinding heckin SCIENCE through their 20's.

Island A would have more generations, 2000 / 20 = 100 generations,
Island B 2000 / 30 = 66.67 generations of ppl.

it just feels like somethin'd happen to their brains, not a scientist tho

mutation accumulation in DNA also would be more present in Island A, they'd have more of that garbage mutational load

If you got any scientists or biologists in your uni or whatever hit them up with this Lamarckism.

>>24477407
if anything I think less girls have sex in college

>>24490281
okay not talent
just raw brainpower, neuron activity.

Consider this, two identical islands, identical populations, A and B.

Island A had people who bred always at 20, never had education and were just chilling

Island B had people who bred always at 30, and were grinding heckin SCIENCE through their 20's.

2000 years pass:

Island A would have more generations, 2000 / 20 = 100 generations,
Island B 2000 / 30 = 66.67 generations of ppl.

it just feels like somethin'd happen to their brains, B intuitively would've been more developed. I didn't do my research THOUGH
mutation accumulation in DNA also would be more present in Island A, they'd have more of that garbage mutational load
If you got any scientists or biologists in your uni or whatever hit them up with this, Lamarckism.

>>24490281
>epigenetic markers attributing toxin, heat/cold, pollution, w/e resistance are well-documented, epigenetic markers conferring talent are not
it's hard to measure epigenetic markers conferring intelligence, it'd take at the very least two whole generations

>>24490272
>What about the wikipedia article itself? You read it? What's your verdict
The article is fine, though it's lacking citations in a few places and the header should be enough proof you should take it with a grain of salt. The gist of the claim I think you're drawing from says 'Environmental factors can induce the epigenetic marks (epigenetic tags) for some epigenetically influenced traits. These can include, but are not limited to, changes in temperature, resources availability, exposure to pollutants, chemicals, and endocrine disruptors.' That's true; I agree with that, it's widely accepted. I caution extrapolating 'are not limited to' to complex traits like memory for a few reasons I'll try to illustrate now.

It isn't easy for epigenetic markers to encode complex traits. The vast majority of epigenetic markers are histone modifications (histones are large proteins which DNA is packed/wound around when it's not being actively transcribed) which do one of four things: upregulate transcription, downregulate transcription, mark a gene as a site of active transcription, or silence a gene. Neurobiology isn't my specialty, but I know enough to know that things like skill and physical memory are dynamically encoded by shifting enhancer and promoter activity in relevant genes which results in a physical rearrangement of neurons into a structure which allows the reproduction of action from memory, activity which is localized and doesn't involve all neurons of the same type.

>>24490402
Epigentic markers, since they're inherited through the germline, are uniformly distributed throughout daughter cells. Obviously the 'neuron' section of the epigenome is silenced in non-neuronal cells, but since the epigenomic markers are going to be present in every neuronal cell of the same cell type, it strikes me as difficult or impossible for that epigenetic information to lead to the physical rearrangement of only the handful neurons necessary to encode a memory or anything like a memory without interfering with the activity of the rest of those neurons. That said, the epigenome is very complicated, and inheritance is not fully understood, so I can't say that it's impossible, only that our current understanding of how epigenetic heritance works doesn't support it.
Toxin resistance is often as simple as selecting the gene that confers toxin resistance and making it produce many more transcripts than it normally would, which is very simple for the epigenome to communicate. Dynamically modulating the activity of a set of genes over time is much less simple and maybe not possible.

In the example of Daphnia, where the presence of hormones secreted by predator insects results in subsequent generations growing helmet-like chitin in their developmental stages, is the activation of a pathway which was selected for and is encoded in the DNA by the upregulation of a transcription factor rather than being a dynamic modification to cell structure in the way that memory is. Testosterone, for example, induces certain changes in the human body because humans have evolved to use testosterone as a signalling molecule which - though lacking transformative power on its own - activates an established signaling pathway. The epigenetic marker which leads to the 'helmet' development in Daphnia works in a similar way - it doesn't encode all of the information necessary to make the helmet de novo, it only activates the transcription of a signaling molecule which activates a dormant pathway the organism always possessed.

>>24490387
True, but two generations is an eyeblink for a mouse laboratory, and I'd think if there was solid evidence for the epigenetic inheritance of intelligence it would be possible to prove it in mice before humans. My understanding has plenty of gaps, maybe there's a paper out there that says that's true, but if there is, I haven't read it.

>>24490319
'Raw brainpower' is still a bit controversial to say is epigenetically heritable. It's a complex trait, though one that obviously differs between people and is heritable to a certain extent. it's not like there's an intelligence gene that you can supercharge and that makes you super smart - what we call intelligence is a supernym which gathers a lot of traits like memory retention, education, recall, ability to make connections, capacity for logical deduction, focus, etc. under one term. some of those are obviously not heritable, in the genome or epigenome or otherwise, others potentially are.

The trouble with this experiment specifically is that it's going to be almost impossible to sort out whether island B's population's children's aptitude for heckin science is an inherited trait, since 70 generations have established a culture centered around producing scientists, made entirely of scientists. Any inherited benefit would also be difficult to attribute to the epigenome over the genome, since we can assume over 70 generations there's sexual and natural selection going on.

I wouldn't worry about the accumulation of deleterious mutations for these islands since I'm assuming their low population is just an artifact of the word problem. There's not a relevant general pop. in the world which has to worry about inbreeding.

sorry for being snippy earlier, by the way, writing about this stuff has weirdly improved my mood.

>>24490402
>>24490404
>>24490408
what an effort post...
>epigenetic information to lead to the physical rearrangement of only the handful neurons necessary to encode a memory or anything like a memory without interfering with the activity of the rest of those neurons
What if it does interfere with the rest of those neurons?
Could it be as simple as an increase in their activity? Aka:
>Toxin resistance is often as simple as selecting the gene that confers toxin resistance and making it produce many more transcripts than it normally would
This but just for intelligence? Some epigenetic marker that is transferred onto the offspring from parents who went into uni and makes a lot of smart transcripts (or whatever's responsible for smarts) produce many more transcripts than it normally would?
upd: seem like you somewhat addressed it in the next post: >>24490456

>what we call intelligence is a supernym which gathers a lot of traits like memory retention, education, recall, ability to make connections, capacity for logical deduction, focus, etc. under one term
Sure, but wouldn't all those get developed simultaneously when some 100 IQ average normie grinds knowledge for a decade in pursuit of higher education, with his epigenetic markers influencing that whole bunch of neurons?

(I have no idea what I am talking about, just trying to connect some dots out of your post)

>writing about this stuff has weirdly improved my mood.
important knowledge that you finally found a way to put into some use

>>24478595
Me. Sorry about that.

>>24490499
That's a fair question. The thing you have to understand is that epigenomic markers don't just appear in response to any environmental stimuli - like any biological system they're a result of the millions of years of natural selection which led to the extant, modern organism. It led to the development of a system by which certain environmental stimuli were encoded as information in an extra-genomic heritable system so that the organisms progeny could be better suited to the environment very rapidly, instead of relying on hundreds of generations to develop traits which predispose them for that environment.

It makes sense - at least to me - for things like heat/cold and toxin resistance to be communicable through this system, since organisms are mobile and it's clearly beneficial to be able to induce a trait when it's useful for survival and to turn it off once it no longer is. Toxins, extreme heat and cold, and food scarcity are all things which have troubled the living organism since they were single cells. How many environments have, historically, demanded intelligence as a necessary adaption for survival? What environmental signal could communicate to an animal that its next generations would have a better chance at surviving if more of their metabolic resources were directed to brainpower, and that those resources should be conserved for other processes once outside that environment? I can't think of any. The modern school and professional environment exists, of course, but they're too recent to have embedded themselves in the genome proper. It seems more likely to me that intelligence, as a non-essential trait, might have metabolic resources directed *away* from it in environments that mark the epigenomic - that is to say, the most intelligent your epigenome can make you is inheriting one from parents who were well-fed, healthy, and not awfully stressed.

>>24479798
>antinatalist psyop
Also known as the most rational position.

>>24490609
>since organisms are mobile and it's clearly beneficial to be able to induce a trait when it's useful for survival and to turn it off once it no longer is.
Doesn't this whole system gets confused when people start pursuing education? Decades of doing god knows what: sitting and reading literature. Couldn't it somehow get tricked into thinking it might be some essential trait?
> but they're too recent to have embedded themselves in the genome proper
Nobody had any education before 19th century, it's a recent phenomenon. Society got radically altered within a few hundred years, so the uni grind we have today is something that had never happened to homo-sapiens at any point in history before. Could be huge, and we could see it soon, but only among the educated Western/East Asian upper middle class' offsprings.

Or maybe it'll be very slow and we won't see it at all within half a millenia.. I don't know the extent of how its affects us.