OFF-TOPIC The true Darwin award winners

[sthubbar]

The common understanding of who deserves a "Darwin Award", is someone who dies because of their stupidity.

The actual winners of the "Darwin Award" is anyone that dies without breeding.

So these are some of the most likely actual "Darwin Award" winners:

- Aisha Tyler
- Ann Coulter
- Ann-Margret
- Betty White
- Bo Derek
- Chelsea Handler
- Chrisopher Walken
- Condoleezza Rice
- Debbie Harry
- Diane Sawyer
- Dolly Parton
- Ellen DeGeneres
- Fran Drescher
- Helen Mirren
- Hodo Kotb
- Jennifer Aniston
- John Cusack
- Jon Hamm
- Kathy Bates
- Lisa Lampanelli
- Liza Minnelli
- Margaret Cho
- Marisa Tomei
- Matt Dillon
- Megan Mullaley
- Mickey Rourke
- Pam Grier
- Patrick Swayze
- Renee Zellweger
- Star Jones
- Stevie Nicks
- Stockard Channing
- Tyra Banks
- Winona Ryder

No need to expand the list. It is just interesting that death is associated with the Darwin Award when in reality it is lack of procreation that wins the award.

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[theag]

Ok

 

[Waspy]

Right...

 

[Longinus]

 

[TinyOldLady]

To your bedrooms, everyone. Let's breed

 

[Kris Eire]

I would take into account that many people are infertile. Not everybody who wants child will have one. This is a sad truth - I have many patients who go for IVF or some other form of assisted reproduction and not all of them succeed.
Besides not everybody have to have kids, it's a personal choice. These little pests are very hard work, 24/7. I have 3 kids and sometimes it is not funny at all.
Also many people should not have kids, they abuse them, treat like garbage and sometimes murder. It is better when some people don't have kids.

 

[Ayanle Farah]

What if you die before you have a chance to breed? Also I've seen parent who deserve this award because of their sheer stupidity.

 

[sthubbar]

Not everybody who wants child will have one. This is a sad truth

What if you die before you have a chance to breed?

Yes, unfortunately evolution doesn't care.

 

[Get Right]

Ok, so are you creating a website to leverage this information? What are some ways you could make an interface that would make you the $20k/year you want?

 

[rollerskates]

 

[TonyStark]

#landfill

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[MJ DeMarco]

Folks this is in the OFF-TOPIC section. So consider it water-cooler conversation.

Marissa Tomei? What a shame!

 

[G-Man]

So consider it water-cooler conversation.

If you people start breeding in my water cooler, I'm outta here.

 

[sthubbar]

[

Ok, so are you creating a website to leverage this information?

Folks this is in the OFF-TOPIC section. So consider it water-cooler conversation.

Marissa Tomei? What a shame!

@MJ DeMarco, you took the words out of my mouth, thank you. Ditto, on Marissa Tomei, and to think George Costanza just missed the chance to take her off this list. Caah..STANZA!

 

[Get Right]

[



@MJ DeMarco, you took the words out of my mouth, thank you. Ditto, on Marissa Tomei, and to think George Costanza just missed the chance to take her off this list. Caah..STANZA!

My apologies, I was trying to show that you can make a fastlane business out of anything.

 

[ZF Lee]

If you people start breeding in my water cooler, I'm outta here.

 

[Paul Schuyler]

The actual winners of the "Darwin Award" is anyone that dies without breeding.

Hey wait a minute. With technology you can freeze eggs or sperm which can produce offspring at some point in the future (i.e. after your death) so I would not agree with this. Anyone in this business BTW?

Christopher Walken for example might have been a closet obsessive sperm donor his entire life who might, at some future date, yield an entire race of Christopher Walkens.

And lets not even bring up Cloning.

 

[Hyrum]

I think your understanding of Darwinism is lacking, to say the least. The theory of natural selection refers to the propagation of positive traits and the removal of negative traits of a species as a whole. It has nothing to do with an individual organism's procreation.
Plus, everyone you listed has some (arguably) very positive traits. Therefore, our species as a whole is slightly weaker by the removal of their positive traits from the gene pool. So I don't see how very desirable people not passing along their genes is considered a "winner".

 

[lowtek]

Shame about patrick swayze. He was a talented actor, and by all accounts a decent man.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Personally, I can now sleep better at night. Thanks @sthubbar for this thought provoking thread.

 

[biophase]

The common understanding of who deserves a "Darwin Award", is someone who dies because of their stupidity.

The actual winners of the "Darwin Award" is anyone that dies without breeding.

So these are some of the most likely actual "Darwin Award" winners:

- Aisha Tyler
- Ann Coulter
- Ann-Margret
- Betty White
- Bo Derek
- Chelsea Handler
- Chrisopher Walken
- Condoleezza Rice
- Debbie Harry
- Diane Sawyer
- Dolly Parton
- Ellen DeGeneres
- Fran Drescher
- Helen Mirren
- Hodo Kotb
- Jennifer Aniston
- John Cusack
- Jon Hamm
- Kathy Bates
- Lisa Lampanelli
- Liza Minnelli
- Margaret Cho
- Marisa Tomei
- Matt Dillon
- Megan Mullaley
- Mickey Rourke
- Pam Grier
- Patrick Swayze
- Renee Zellweger
- Star Jones
- Stevie Nicks
- Stockard Channing
- Tyra Banks
- Winona Ryder

No need to expand the list. It is just interesting that death is associated with the Darwin Award when in reality it is lack of procreation that wins the award.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You are saying that the people on this list won the Darwinism award by not breeding, implying that should not further their DNA due to survival of the fittest or smartest.

How does lack of procreation win the award? If anything it’s the opposite of Darwinism when good genes aren’t passed along.

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[SquatchMan]

This is the opposite of Darwinism. This is more the point of Idiocracy.

"Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd. It began to simply reward those that reproduce the most..."

Opening scene included below:

I think your understanding of Darwinism is lacking, to say the least. The theory of natural selection refers to the propagation of positive traits and the removal of negative traits of a species as a whole. It has nothing to do with an individual organism's procreation.

I don't see how natural selection has "nothing to do with an individual organism's procreation."

That's just silly. The theory boils down to "individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce."

 

[Late Bloomer]

I sure hope this isn't the first thread Elon Musk clicks on when he visits the forum...

 

[fhs8]

I could care less about which celebrities ended up having kids or not. Same goes for the cars they drive or what they ate for lunch today.

 

[sthubbar]

I don't see how very desirable people not passing along their genes is considered a "winner".

How does lack of procreation win the award? If anything it’s the opposite of Darwinism when good genes aren’t passed along.

This is the opposite of Darwinism. This is more the point of Idiocracy.

Bingo! The "winners" are actually the losers. Just as the "loser" on The Biggest Loser is actually the winner.

 

[biophase]

Bingo! The "winners" are actually the losers. Just as the "loser" on The Biggest Loser is actually the winner.

Still makes no sense at all. You lost me.

 

[sthubbar]

Still makes no sense at all. You lost me.

The Darwin Awards are meant to highlight human stupidity. From a evolutionary perspective the stupidest people are those people with positive traits that don't breed because they are preventing their positive traits from continuing. The movie clip posted above captures it perfectly.

 

[csalvato]

Darwinism has nothing to do with "good genes".

Darwinism states that traits are passed on solely by procreation. It's survival of the fittest to procreate.

Therefore, even though people may have "good genes" that would "advance the species", evolution quite honestly doesn't give a f*ck.

Evolution only cares if you are willing to mix genes by creating offspring.

Thus, the changes within the human species are driven by those folks who are making the most children.

That's why some wealthy people feel it's their duty to have lots of children - to pass on their genes. Lower income, less educated folks tend to have more kids, which then [arguably] brings human evolution into a place where people with traits we don't want to see propagate are those that are propagating.

So, yes, anyone who dies without procreating wins the Darwin award. This is typically used to highlight dumb people who do dumb shit and die before they procreate. But as the OP mentions, it also includes a host of people who are incredible folks, that will die without making children for one reason or another.

Though, I still don't understand the context of why this post was made.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Though, I still don't understand the context of why this post was made.

According to Dawkins, evolution doesn't care if your ideas are any good, only if you can get other people to think them too. The original post is a random recombination of memes, so that the forum database will grow into another generation of posts. I hope this doesn't mean that a hundred generations after MJ's gone, this will become the dumbest site on the Internet.

 

[TonyStark]

I can sympathize with OP, yes Darwinism is about survival of the fittest, but if your genes don’t get passed on what was the point?

How are you going to pass on your genes without having kids? Lol