Black Pill · Society

Hiking and Darwinian Selection

A few weeks ago I went on a hiking trip, visiting a spot I particularly enjoyed as a kid. Imagine an elevated plain with a few rocks scattered around that drops rather steeply into a valley, and on the other side you see a forest with six gorillion trees, trees as far as the eye can see.

Spending time in nature is great. There is peace and quiet, and degenerate garbage is far away. Yet, the nanny state is not. My favorite spot has an old wooden bench to sit on. Right in front of you is a formation of rocks, and through and beyond, you see this endless forest. Yet, some useless bureaucrat thought it would be a great idea to put a big sign about six feet in front of the bench that reads, “Danger! No hiking path; risk of falling!!” Well, thanks for this really helpful piece of advice, Karen!

Hiking trails are well marked. Back in the days of yore, you had trail maps. Today, you can use your phone if you get lost and are not too far away from civilization. Otherwise, just walk from one marker to the next. It is quite obvious that if you steer from an established hiking trail, you may end up in some kind of trouble, or cause trouble for animals and rare plants. Indicating that there is a risk of falling at some spot seems absurd. I would like to post a picture but for privacy reasons I cannot do that. This would clearly show that you can see where the trail becomes unsafe, and if you had half a brain, you would not walk close to an edge to see if you will fall.

The Karens of the world surely would love nothing more than having one warning sign next to another to make sure nothing bad ever happens, and we better have them in nature instead of at every corner in the dangerous parts of town. Yet, I cannot help but think that a bit less hand-holding would be quite desirable. In all honesty, if someone is so fucking stupid that they do not realize that it is dangerous to walk close to the edge of a cliff, such a person pollutes the gene pool anyway. Why would we want someone like that have children?

Men are more adventurous and more reckless than women, which partly explains why there are more women than men around past the age of 30 or 40. Plenty of men just engage in some nonsense like free climbing or street racing, and end up killing themselves. It is, of course a tragedy if they kill unsuspecting bystanders, but, by and large, if someone values life very little, it is highly beneficial that they die before they have children. If we did not give people the chance to remove themselves from the gene pool, it would just deteriorate even further. It may sound harsh, but in the long run, it is better if such people drown while canoeing down a fast river than if they passed on their genes. In the latter case, nature may just decide to make their offspring even more reckless and stupid. Thus, I would prefer if some idiots fall to their death at that cliff mentioned above than have the view ruined by that stupid sign.

2 thoughts on “Hiking and Darwinian Selection

  1. What if you have some sort of idiot savant type person?

    Where their presence in society helps YOUR genes get passed on, but they’re hopelessly useless outside of a very narrow domain of expertise?

    For example, an autist who develops technologies that effectively reduce and recycle pollution, but can barely tie his laces.

    Or this guy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s

    1. If they don’t have children, then their genes don’t get passed on. Leonardo da Vinci was a great genius, yet had no children. Aristotle only had one child, a daughter. It’s unfortunate for mankind, but sometimes great genes die out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.