Dessert_All_Day
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 406
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
*crickets*Seratonin causing them to be gregarious, more social and stronger? Am I missing something here?
Could someone with a scientific bent talk a little more about this please. I’m finding myself a bit confused and at odds with what the studies seems to be implying, and what the general consensus is on here about seratonin.
Thanks guys.
Is that not beneficial? Furthering the line of the grasshopper species is pretty good for grasshoppers. And outcompeting intraspecial males is good for the male ones.Serotonin turn peaceful grasshoppers into swarming, angry, murderous destructive locusts that will destroy everything in their path, including each other.
Why only men? All women today are descended from them too then.Is that not beneficial? Furthering the line of the grasshopper species is pretty good for grasshoppers. And outcompeting intraspecial males is good for the male ones.
Just take a look at human pre-bronze age history. There were a couple of very lucky guys living on the planet 50k years ago, as virtually all men today are descended from them.
Because men can father thousands of sons, but women can only mother ~30 daughters.Why only men? All women today are descended from them too then.
Is that not beneficial? Furthering the line of the grasshopper species is pretty good for grasshoppers. And outcompeting intraspecial males is good for the male ones.
Just take a look at human pre-bronze age history. There were a couple of very lucky guys living on the planet 50k years ago, as virtually all men today are descended from them.
Well I don't disagree with anything you've said. But the fact remains that resources are finite, and certain realities real, and in many cases across space and time, some individuals don't have the option of leisurely living.Do you think that is truly beneficial?
Well I don't disagree with anything you've said. But the fact remains that resources are finite, and certain realities real, and in many cases across space and time, some individuals don't have the option of leisurely living.
This more or less mirrors the rough phenomenon of r/k selection (you can argue to what extent this is genetic, it doesn't really matter). But there's a reason yellow jackets are so successful, while paper wasps are less so, and mud daubers almost impossible to encounter.
I agree. I was referring to the inevitable reality of animal life and human civilization.If there is natural scarcity, then so be it. But to reproduce it (and its serotonergic phenotype) artificially is pathological behavior, at least to me. That's what the SSRI drugs do.
and that phenotype is going to see scarcity (zero sum; a finite pie) where there is none--like a self-fulfilling prophesy--attrits his/her environment and desecrates anything good right before them.By all means, as I said in my post as well, in times of scarcity it probably pays off to be a powerful, brutal, formidable, adversary. All I am saying is that we should not be aiming to artificially reproduce scarcity (if there is none naturally) just to stimulate that competitive, brutish behavior on purpose as if it would lead to something good. While it may be very good for short term survival eventually it leads to reverse evolution and potentially even a die-off event (in the human version things World War, civil war, disease epidemic, etc).
If there is natural scarcity, then so be it. But to reproduce it (and its serotonergic phenotype) artificially is pathological behavior, at least to me. That's what the SSRI drugs do.
and that phenotype is going to see scarcity (zero sum; a finite pie) where there is none--like a self-fulfilling prophesy--attrits his/her environment and desecrates anything good right before them.
It leads me to wonder if maybe avoiding Tryptophan is half-pointless (not counting the Kynurenine pathway) if you simply have enough SERT activity to compensate... is there anywhere where this has been quantified?
At the same time now I wonder, in starvation, at what stage does tissue Tryptophan become so low as to make serotonin synthesis drop under SERT's clearance rate (effectively preventing swarming)?...