This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

[removed]

Knowing that humanoids were almost at all times very social I don't think they would accept or tolerate someone who is obviously not giving a shit about social structure nor helping the group advance into the future in a productive way.

Not humans necessarily, but in most other animals

[removed]

[removed]

This is actually pretty interesting! Do you think that it would be the same in other animals that have less of a conscious right or wrong sense?

[removed]

[removed]

I get what you are trying to say, even if it doesn't come across quite right.

On a nature documentary they detailed a fish with two distinct males, an Alpha and a Beta. The Alpha was big and showy and kept all the femskes, so you'd expect the Betas would have no chance to reproduce and die off. But they could get in and fertilise eggs whilst the Alphas were defending territory. So differences to the norm can be successful.

[removed]

So maybe rape isn’t, as proved by a phsycologist in another comment, but having a stronger sex drive certainly is

[removed]

[removed]

And here my people is why Idiocracy is an accurate take instead of just a comedy

[deleted]

If you can prove sex drive is hereditary, if any trait you wonder about isn't, then the conversation is fairly pointless.

As far as I am aware, sex drive is still under debate, and needs more studies to be solidified as hereditary.

Saying "certainly" is wrong for sure.

Yes, it goes along personality traits of the fast life history spectrum, which are both heritable and epigenetic.

In a world where a cohesive family structure is advantageous it would not be favorable to have the female hate you. Raising a child until it is an adult and able to reproduce is the goal in evolution (simple over statement). Creating a baby that is going to be dependent on the mother for many years, where the mother might have negative associations and potentially negative feelings towards the child will not give said child a competitive advantage vs. Peers. At least this is how I see it.

Even if it’s not hereditary, the individuals who have it, will reproduce more, so even if their not reproducing that trait they are reproducing the rest of their traits more, so natural selection does favour individual creatures who have one, even if neither of their parents do.

Your right. I admitted earlier that I was definitely wrong about rape, but creatures with a stronger sex drive will reproduce more, most of the time probably

You can't know for sure, because you're stating it like it's above normal, and that kind of behavior might get you locked up and the person who you violated got an abortion, most likely.

So like, no matter how you think about it, there are valid arguments against it being a "certainty".