Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Penny Arcade - Comic - That’s So Gabe

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
edited April 4 in The Penny Arcade Hub

imagePenny Arcade - Comic - That’s So Gabe

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

Read the full story here


Unknown User on
CambiataSkull2185A Dabble Of TheloniusAndy JoeSadgasmZilla360RiusNightslyrcB557furlionH3KnuckleskimeDonnictonBobbleMagicalGoats

Posts

  • AgentflitAgentflit Registered User regular
    Damn, that's a sharp chin.

  • Skull2185Skull2185 It's literature. Smutty literature. Deal. With. It.Registered User regular
    Hah! Gabe would fall under the spell of a videogame cult leader.

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
    H3Knuckles
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    ...did Gabe seriously become brainwashed by a cult in a VIDEO GAME?

  • twmjrtwmjr Registered User regular
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ...did Gabe seriously become brainwashed by a cult in a VIDEO GAME?

    this is extremely on brand

    Skull2185dennisCommander ZoomTofystedethYoungFreyDemonStaceyZilla360AldoRiusLostNinjaFiendishrabbitCambiataNightslyrcB557KamarMichaelLCVerminionFearghaillH3KnucklesRhesus PositiveLord_AsmodeusDonnictonshoeboxjeddyDusdaNarbusLeon2309MagicalGoats
  • Skull2185Skull2185 It's literature. Smutty literature. Deal. With. It.Registered User regular
    Yeah, remember Gabe also bought a "PS5" once and it was a box of spoons or something. He was having so much fun with it, Div didn't have the heart to break it to him. He also thought he could sell photos of his 360 on ebay for lots of money. I believe the goal was to buy a BMX bike so he could be "rad everyday"

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
    H3Knuckles
  • TiamatZTiamatZ Ghost puns The Banette of my existenceRegistered User regular
    edited April 4
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ...did Gabe seriously become brainwashed by a cult in a VIDEO GAME?

    He loves his cults.
    ted9323f3ps9.png



    TiamatZ on
    Dark Raven XNightslyrH3KnucklesRhesus PositiveLord_AsmodeusMagicalGoats
  • Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The PIT, level 26Registered User regular
    twmjr wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ...did Gabe seriously become brainwashed by a cult in a VIDEO GAME?

    this is extremely on brand

    That's the joke!

    thepit_bg_sig_banner.png
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Their songs are so catchy!

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • Skull2185Skull2185 It's literature. Smutty literature. Deal. With. It.Registered User regular
    Their songs are so catchy!

    The non-cultists get to listen to Joe Walsh, tho

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
  • SpinelesSSpinelesS Registered User regular
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

  • RingoRingo Stardust, Golden Caught in a Devil's BargainRegistered User regular
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
    Edith UpwardsdennisMagicalGoats
  • RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    Off the top of my head:

    Andrew Ryan: Bioshock
    Jowy: Suikoden 2
    The Reapers?: Mass Effect

    I know there's a million more but I can't think of them right now. Video games are certainly on par with movies regarding bad guys with nuance. They're not common but they certainly exist in the better stories.

    NSDFRand
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

    In the given example, that wasn't the reasoning for Veidt. Accepting the conceit of the movie - which is that Veidt has an enormous intellect - he is sacrificing a large minority of innocent lives because he sees imminent global nuclear war that will kill the majority of humanity. I think the point of his plan was that there was simply no other option is massive brain could see and it was either that or extinction.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Sounds like Jerry would rate the game a 6.5, if he were going to give it a number. :whistle:

    fightinfilipino
  • PyrianPyrian Registered User regular
    Shadowrun: Dragonfall has a pretty good villain in that respect. He's just out to save the world, and you have to, um, stop him.

    cB557
  • Jakk FrostJakk Frost Registered User regular
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

    Yes, but the virtual nullification of "survival of the fittest" by humanity is also quite dangerous. Our medical advances have the unintended effect of weakening our overall genetic integrity, since genetic anomalies that normally wouldn't perpetuate in a natural setting are instead able to survive and spread.

  • MaximumSquidMaximumSquid Registered User regular
    edited April 5
    I actually skipped all of FryCry except for the original beta. . . The AI wasn't done yet so you could win "Gunless" on hard mode

    Does the most recent game actually let you be neutral or even shift sides?
    That would seem really progressive to me for a game that has been getting annual releases

    MaximumSquid on
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    I actually skipped all of FryCry except for the original beta. . . The AI wasn't done yet so you could win "Gunless" on hard mode

    Does the most recent game actually let you be neutral or even shift sides?
    That would seem really progressive to me for a game that has been getting annual releases

    No. The more realistic option would have you switching "sides" depending on operational realities. But it would also have included a lot more war crimes on all sides and there would really have been no villain.

  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

    Yes, but the virtual nullification of "survival of the fittest" by humanity is also quite dangerous. Our medical advances have the unintended effect of weakening our overall genetic integrity, since genetic anomalies that normally wouldn't perpetuate in a natural setting are instead able to survive and spread.

    I don't think you fully understand "survival of the fittest" if you think it's been nullified. We're not being given medicine, agricultural technologies and other means by which we've spread our genes all over the place by aliens from outer space. Humans did it. Much like when we started poking around with sticks to increase our food opportunities or started wearing animal skins or tamed fire, we used technology to make us more fit for survival.

    I'm not saying I don't get what you're saying. But the path we're on is going to be the more successful one, in terms of spreading DNA (the only thing life ultimately selects for) than any other. Eventually, it's likely we'll be ale to improve our immune systems enough that we don't even have to worry about pathogens.

    And then there's the fact that when you say "humanity" what you really mean is "the first world countries." There's a substantial portion of the rest of humanity that is still there in the trenches duking it out with all our old enemies.

    Of course, it'll probably be pointless and the eventual big asteroid will probably wipe out all "higher" life forms anyway. But in terms of raw DNA replication, we're punching above our weight.

    milskicB557Zilla360Lord_AsmodeusLeon2309
  • HardKaseHardKase Registered User regular
    I just finished the main campaign, and this is a lot more on point than anyone realized.

    Steam ID: [email protected] (yes I was drunk when I created it)
  • Jakk FrostJakk Frost Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

    Yes, but the virtual nullification of "survival of the fittest" by humanity is also quite dangerous. Our medical advances have the unintended effect of weakening our overall genetic integrity, since genetic anomalies that normally wouldn't perpetuate in a natural setting are instead able to survive and spread.

    I don't think you fully understand "survival of the fittest" if you think it's been nullified. We're not being given medicine, agricultural technologies and other means by which we've spread our genes all over the place by aliens from outer space. Humans did it. Much like when we started poking around with sticks to increase our food opportunities or started wearing animal skins or tamed fire, we used technology to make us more fit for survival.

    I'm not saying I don't get what you're saying. But the path we're on is going to be the more successful one, in terms of spreading DNA (the only thing life ultimately selects for) than any other. Eventually, it's likely we'll be ale to improve our immune systems enough that we don't even have to worry about pathogens.

    And then there's the fact that when you say "humanity" what you really mean is "the first world countries." There's a substantial portion of the rest of humanity that is still there in the trenches duking it out with all our old enemies.

    Of course, it'll probably be pointless and the eventual big asteroid will probably wipe out all "higher" life forms anyway. But in terms of raw DNA replication, we're punching above our weight.

    Firstly, I said "virtually nullified". Secondly, where did you come up with that "alien" stuff? And the medical advances that humanity has made are precisely what I'm talking about (and yes, I did mean in the west, I'm just getting tired of always making that qualification when it should be obvious). We're seeing rapid growth in allergies to common foods, thanks to the sterility of our society weakening our immune systems, unlike those others you mentioned "in the trenches", who have far hardier immune systems.

    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young, or would otherwise been unable to procreate, due to genetic abnormalities. "Heroic measures" taken by medicine allow them to live much longer, and even productive lives, but the abnormal genetic info is also preserved and allowed to become productive.

  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    I’m super not into this comic thread becoming a discussion on eugenics

    Hahnsoo1Tim is on the InternetCambiataAndy JoeV1mZilla360shoeboxjeddyDusdaMoridin889MegaMekLeon2309
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    SpinelesS wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for a game to go "The Kingsman" Route and have a bad guy who's a little crazy but also has a valid point.

    I'm pretty sure any point you are trying to make becomes invalidated when it involves global genocide!

    IDK, I mean, you have to factor in social inertia. The logic being that only in the threat, (or after the success) of an event that could eliminate most of a population could society change. The Watchmen's Adrian Veidt uses this approach.

    It certainly can have positive results, the Black Plague was large part of why the feudal system collapsed, but it's not supposed to be your first option. The idea that the majority of humanity is just chaff to be cleared away so the survivors can thrive is a very dangerous mindset.

    Yes, but the virtual nullification of "survival of the fittest" by humanity is also quite dangerous. Our medical advances have the unintended effect of weakening our overall genetic integrity, since genetic anomalies that normally wouldn't perpetuate in a natural setting are instead able to survive and spread.

    I don't think you fully understand "survival of the fittest" if you think it's been nullified. We're not being given medicine, agricultural technologies and other means by which we've spread our genes all over the place by aliens from outer space. Humans did it. Much like when we started poking around with sticks to increase our food opportunities or started wearing animal skins or tamed fire, we used technology to make us more fit for survival.

    I'm not saying I don't get what you're saying. But the path we're on is going to be the more successful one, in terms of spreading DNA (the only thing life ultimately selects for) than any other. Eventually, it's likely we'll be ale to improve our immune systems enough that we don't even have to worry about pathogens.

    And then there's the fact that when you say "humanity" what you really mean is "the first world countries." There's a substantial portion of the rest of humanity that is still there in the trenches duking it out with all our old enemies.

    Of course, it'll probably be pointless and the eventual big asteroid will probably wipe out all "higher" life forms anyway. But in terms of raw DNA replication, we're punching above our weight.

    Firstly, I said "virtually nullified". Secondly, where did you come up with that "alien" stuff? And the medical advances that humanity has made are precisely what I'm talking about (and yes, I did mean in the west, I'm just getting tired of always making that qualification when it should be obvious). We're seeing rapid growth in allergies to common foods, thanks to the sterility of our society weakening our immune systems, unlike those others you mentioned "in the trenches", who have far hardier immune systems.

    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young, or would otherwise been unable to procreate, due to genetic abnormalities. "Heroic measures" taken by medicine allow them to live much longer, and even productive lives, but the abnormal genetic info is also preserved and allowed to become productive.

    I'm not sure what genetic abnormalities you think arent being properly screened out by natural selection. Pretty much all human physical and mental disorders are recurring mutations and have been around long before modern medicine.

    cB557Leon2309
  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

    Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.

    cB557furlionBloodySlothLord_Asmodeus
  • YoungFreyYoungFrey Registered User regular
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

    Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.
    Did you mean "high infant-mortality rates"?

  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    edited April 6
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

    Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.
    YoungFrey wrote: »
    Did you mean "high infant-mortality rates"?

    Also, did you mean to say "life expectancy"? Lifespan is just maximum age any individual has ever been observed to have obtained. It's not an average.

    You know what, never mind. I don't think Tube wants us getting off on this tangent that's not really related to the comic, so I'm going to discontinue engaging in the subject.

    dennis on
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    YoungFrey wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

    Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.
    Did you mean "high infant-mortality rates"?

    Well, mortality rates were super high back then

    100% of people born in pre-technological eras are now dead

    Compare that to modern day

    Living people everywhere

    Tim is on the InternetdenniscB557Rear Admiral ChocoMoridin889MegaMekTofystedethAndy JoeLord_Asmodeus
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    YoungFrey wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Jakk Frost wrote: »
    And then there's the people who naturally would have died young,

    I'm not going to respond very much in depth, because Tube is complaining about the direction of the discussion (though I'm not entirely sure I understand how it's a discussion of eugenics, since this isn't about trying to direct humans to breed in a certain way and is rather just a discussion of the outcome of how our technology affects evolutionary pressures).

    So this may seem a bit glib and for that I apologize in advance. But I just wanted to say that from an pre-technological/pre-civilizational standpoint, any of us past our peak reproductive years are already overstaying our welcome. Natural selection pressures of that era didn't really give a shit if we pumped out a lot of babies and died in our 20s.

    Actually, the human lifespan wasnt quite that bad even in prehistory, it's just massively skewed because of the high mortality rates. If you made it to adulthood, you had a decent chance of reaching atleast middle age and even your 60's.
    Did you mean "high infant-mortality rates"?

    Well, mortality rates were super high back then

    100% of people born in pre-technological eras are now dead

    Compare that to modern day

    Living people everywhere

    This math checks out.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    dennisAndy JoeLord_Asmodeus
  • Jakk FrostJakk Frost Registered User regular
    Well, I was specifically not discussing eugenics, which is an evil ideology and is basically the opposite of natural selection.

  • ziddersroofurryziddersroofurry Registered User regular
    edited April 9
    I'm just waiting for someone to mod in ponies so I can go hoof to hoof with the most Unholy Queen Chrysalis. The Bridled Blasphemer VS. the Bug Cult ftw.

    ziddersroofurry on
  • InvertinInvertin Registered User regular
    The thing is that there's evidence of prehistoric humans and even some animals going out of their way to protect and support other members of their species who can't support themselves, and those human remains were even buried with flowers.

    Survival of the fittest is all well and good but unfortunately the capacity of sentient beings to care about things is much stronger and also much more important in the long run.

    Plus if you're really looking at things like that you have to start defining what "fittest" actually means and you slip right into eugenics whether you want to or not.

    H3KnucklesAndy Joe
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    Invertin wrote: »
    The thing is that there's evidence of prehistoric humans and even some animals going out of their way to protect and support other members of their species who can't support themselves, and those human remains were even buried with flowers.

    Survival of the fittest is all well and good but unfortunately the capacity of sentient beings to care about things is much stronger and also much more important in the long run.

    Plus if you're really looking at things like that you have to start defining what "fittest" actually means and you slip right into eugenics whether you want to or not.

    Survival of the fittest just means the organisms being able to do well enough to procreate. The whole idea of genetic superiority is just childish power fantasies.

    cB557H3KnucklesV1mAndy Joe
Sign In or Register to comment.