Alpinestars Bionic Neck Brace Template Free

Love in times of the jungle

Are you a romantic, you you should consider whether you want to read this post further. We do namely the evolutionary origins of mate choice and retention illuminate a little. And they have little to do with love, but especially with mathematics, tactics, and cool facts. To confront the question of what drives us together and binds together, we must in fact take the view of genes and look at it from their perspective based on their interests. For all the love feelings for partner, we feel, of course, just because our genes have so made that we should have them straight and true feelings. So, ready for the truth?

Lechers men, women housewives more.

This is our starting point and because feminists can still so very upset: The sexes are now sometimes provided with a congenital asymmetry : females are by definition those who have larger and more complex reproductive cells. Males are "the others", which fertilize the female. The female does not want to waste the precious resources for the "expensive" eggs, thus selects its partners very carefully and also takes care of fertilization to the delivery of child rearing, nutrition, care, etc. The male is as much easy-going, because its sex cells are cheap in the making: It just has a healthy female "convincing" to let him to fertilize. Or more females. Actually, as many females as they come. So are - even for the people - men tend to be informers and lechers and women - well, let's say, do not lose his head slightly. Not for nothing that the female element was associated since time immemorial with stability and traction ("Mother Earth", the Latin "mater" in the word "matter"), while the masculine, such as wind and breath was to be located in the sky ("Our Father in Heaven, "" the Holy Spirit "etc.). Alfred Kinsey put it in the other hand, experimental prose Sun: "Cheese crumbs spread not in front of copulating rats will distract the female but the male.

Walking upright is the source of love

No, Jesus is not the source of love, but the erect posture of man. He caused namely a narrow pelvis, because the essence not otherwise can walk upright. A narrow pelvis, in turn an early date of birth, because of the growing (with men relatively large) head through does not fit otherwise. Therefore, the human child is really too early to the world. A baby chimpanzee can For example, relatively soon to the mummy cling and crawl. A human child is, however, the first few years, a defenseless screaming lump of flesh. A mother alone it can not provide, or at least not as good as mother and father together. How to tie but the father who wants to really attract the successful fertilization process further (see above), to the mother? - Aha - love! This assumption also fits the findings that most pair separations - done after about four years ago, saw evolutionary if the child can walk and talk already and and not so helpless is - as it were the low point of love. From the time the male Genverbreitungswahrscheinlichkeit by further fertilization higher than other time-and resource investments in the existing child.

Men seeking beauty, women Status

Yet another seemingly sexist statement - and again one that's right. Because beauty is for health and fertility (see here ) - and status is available for existing resources within the social hierarchy of society. Thus both sexes primary interests are satisfied. A nice burger seller is therefore - experimentally demonstrated - not for women as attractive as a carrier of ugly chic suits. Conversely, women tend to be the more sexual partners, the less attractive they find themselves (proof here) - where they have to for lack of beauty does not a great chance qualitative partners promise to try it stop with the crowd.

And again, these preferences can hide behind the most idealistic feelings - after all, our genes tell us what we feel at the sight of the intended one or the other.


men and women have good reason to fling

So, now have come together man and woman. But wait - you can so increase chances of survival for their offspring continue to improve. And both men in that they find the "legal" children, further evidence for occasional liaisons left and right. Even if these new offspring can not look so intense, maybe it makes the number. 10 illegitimate children, 2 survive, perhaps. And this is better than no infidelity and "only" have legitimate children. The cost of an escapade are so low, the yield may be worth it. Cool math.

The women are not better. For them, it pays to find a caring family man who is willing to invest years of his life in the offspring, and then to have an affair with a genetically better equipped man of whom they obtained the hereditary healthier for the child. The child must then educate the horned caring father. So she has the best of both worlds. Here too cool mathematics.

monogamy prevents civil wars

monogamy - that is to assign a woman to a man - is ultimately a social pacification measure. Polygamous societies (which was always the man several wives and not vice versa), there were some for ages. However, such a polygamous society from a genetic point of view of good and bad women for men. Women can share a healthy and wealthy man who contributes to the good genes and provides the next generation. The women, such a (in all respects) potent man "too much" is missing but the "lower" end of the social hierarchy of men. Ie, polygamy means that there are many frustrated young woman without men. And such men, therefore, be more aggressive and restless - it is nothing to lose - and oppose the "upper", the "monopolized" the women have among themselves. So what brings unrest in society, so monogamous societies do better in the long run. Monogamy is thus a means of restraining the male underclass. The victims are the women, because in addition to the withdrawal of the benefits of polygamy (see above), they are also subjected to draconian measures against the risk of side jump, such as headscarves, female genital circumcision, domestic violence etc.. The main thing, the woman at the reproductive prevent other, so that one's own time and resources are not wasted on children of other men. One has only one woman getting allocated and will have that under control. Women sacrifice so in that respect, to bring peace in the society. A thank you at this point to all the brave women!

it, then we get after all the revelations deep breath and sing:

How To Put A Weavon On With A Fringe

The thing in itself

The world that surrounds us is filled with all sorts of stuff. Proper vacuum must be laboriously prepared at great expense ; in the wild, there is almost never - not more than in the intergalactic wasteland where found only about one atom per square meter. Otherwise, it abounds everywhere of matter - be it mere air. Before the emergence of the universe did not exist - neither space nor matter - and then suddenly it was something. A more radical change than from nothing to something, you can imagine. And one wonders at times - what is all around me exactly? What is the Kantian thing in itself ?

Well, that depends on who you ask.

If you ask the scientist, he would give no answer: It always has been asked what would happen if things ever further divided. The philosopher Democritus it dawned that the process would eventually stop, and he postulated from the sleeves out a basic element that could not be further divided, and called it atomos , the "Unzer cutable. Two millennia later, turned out experimentally : So unzerschneidbar the atoms were not: they had a core and a shell. The core of "collapsed" and continue into protons and neutrons, these later in quarks. But now you've found the ultimate, indivisible elementary particles, it was thought. But no, they are now after the string theory of small vibrating "strings" exist, the length is much about the smaller than a speck of dust, as this is smaller than the entire universe . Since these are so tiny, can also be described mathematically only in a room with eleven dimensions, and the man simply can not imagine this, the strings to help with the question of clarity further. As well as general information in quantum physics applies here: the smaller the object, the less his behavior and "appearance" with the common sense to do. We are simply too limited to understand what matter is "really".

If you ask the nihilists, he would say nothing. And he is right - because the atoms are to largely of empty space. Which is located in the center of the nucleus surrounded by electrons, and between them is - a gaping void! After a common size comparison would be a nucleus the size of a pinhead to cover the size of a football field. It is difficult to convince yourself that the hammer with which you have just cut to the thumb, largely consists of nothing, but it is so.

If you ask the pessimists, he might reply: From waste. And that's - bleak worldview provided - not to be dismissed out of hand. For the Big Bang created matter and antimatter - as if everything received a very strange, both would annihilate on contact with each other according to the normal course of events. The universe would hardly emerged spectacularly dissolve in a sea of light. For some mysterious reason it was accidental but a bit more matter than antimatter . The fireworks burnt up so not complete, there remained a few remnants, fragments and clumps, which has since haunted the room. This residual item now form the visible universe. Cosmic waste, unused ammunition for the party at the beginning of the luminous being.

And so would Kant's question after the "thing in itself", two centuries later does not really become smarter than before. And since you are a nobody in the full sense of that word figuratively can not imagine anyway (because as we also need to think away themselves, the viewer), it is the matter, whatever "is" on you, only as necessary to be grateful. Unless you get flat skin with the hammer thumb.

Calves Hurt From Skiing

Criminal Law and free will

We have already worked in a different place with the question of whether humans have free will. The result was that, regardless of how the "free will" means that man in any case under very specific conditions of each case - that his life story, his Experience, which he classified as important decision criteria, his present mood, etc. - can decide on only one way. Rewind back to the time 100 times and lets the people make the decision again, he will get the same result every time.

The question that arises then is: What do we actually punish the criminals? We have charged them each time that is before (legal category of personal " debt") that they have consciously decided against the law and the injustice and committed the crime. Should we rethink about the whole criminal law? Imagine a courtroom and the following dialogue between Defender and prosecutor before:

Attorney : According to the results of the investigation it is clear that you have stolen the Mona Lisa! Behind bars with you!

defender :
Not so hasty! My client has indeed confessed his crime. I still apply for acquittal! What do you wonder why at first glance, when you look closely and think about absolutely sincere and keen. For you see, my client was at the moment so not do otherwise, as the "Mona Lisa" to steal. As there is a "free", not hanging in the air will have, was the decision of my clients is an unavoidable product of numerous factors, the different can not be, but all are of equal weight for his decision! The specific electrical currents in his brain at the moment of decision for the theft were the result of his difficult childhood, his desperate financial situation, but even the mere fact of his birth, the birth of his mother and grandmother and millions of other small or large causes. Ultimately, his theft have necessarily caused the Renaissance, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the big bang. All of these events and circumstances linked an uninterrupted chain of causes that has tragically ended up in the slump in the Louvre. But he was nothing for it! The electrical impulses in his brain, although the last link in the chain of causes, but it is a random element picked out by another million. Punish but his mother that she was born, or Leonardo da Vinci, he painted the first picture! The fact that you, Judge, not now stand in its place, you owe only the happy coincidence that this endless chain of causation has not brought you to the crooks in the gutter, but on the tribunal. Do you want to punish my client really just for being in the lottery of the blind causality happens to be unlucky?

Attorney :
But Mr. defenders hesitate, but the time the consequences! First, there is no compelling If the conclusion from being . That man is not free in its decisions, may be a scientific fact. However, the consequences for our sense of justice, our value system, by which happen to be punishment of offenders, once nothing. In our society we have namely the subjective and inter-subjective idea that man is acting as autonomous beings ultimate author of his deeds, and not the extinction of the dinosaurs. This social consensus is like a menu in a restaurant: if there a free and a paid dining there, and the fee-based option, you can not tell the waiter, the cashier, too, you had it is compulsively decided and therefore not want to pay. So happens to be the rules of the game, Mr. defender. And secondly, keep in mind - if we can not punish someone for his guilt, we can also praise anyone for his services! The result of your view would accept a callous world of humanoid machines where you deny the existence of people, and their actions is as good or bad weather would have. Our identity as a human being is at stake here! Shakespeare and Beethoven were just machines? And guess what, your "knowledge" would talk about - the loss would be the result of any responsibility, and each could with the words "I could not help" save the impunity.

defender :
I ask not of outright sanctions freedom for the accused - I argue for a paradigm shift in criminal law. You, Mr. Attorney complain, not even an apple falling from a tree on your head - you are either wary of first place, or take any appropriate measures to ensure that nothing like this was repeated. And we must also deal with people - prevention above all else - or improvement of the offender. Only with the nonsense about "guilt" and "punishment" we should stop. There is increasing evidence so That even serious crime often has a clear biological catalysts - such as genetic defects or serotonin deficiency. We should start as well. And - yes, our mission should be reconsidered as a man - but it's just the lobes, for the children's education and artistic achievements nor acceptable to play your "party game" with the acceptance of personal responsibility, the fun does but at least then, if you a man for years of his life behind bars, lock and pretend that the problem was solved!

The age-old illusion is over, Mr. Prosecutor.