zlacker

> It does not. For example young women and girls, even when knowing that an image of a fashion model is photoshopped, still exhibit drops in their self body image.

In the natural world traits that are wasted on futile efforts are eventually not selected. In the human world, traits that are ripe for manipulation in a free market would result in lower purchasing power. Thus, less ability to afford children and pass on the traits. Subsidizing via regulations or direct support prolongs the subterfuge we are discussing here. Perhaps, in perpetuity.

> In many cases these two things are the same, due to the prevalence and efficacy of lobbying

The reason there are lobbyist is because we have granted those being lobbied control. Take away the control and the lobbying is pointless. More rules and regulations = more lobbying.

>>ghastm+(OP)
> In the human world, traits that a ripe for manipulation in a free market would result in lower purchasing power. Thus, less ability to afford children and pass on the traits

This is mostly nonsense

>>biorac+P5
Air is mostly nitrogen.

How is it mostly nonsense?

>>ghastm+(OP)
>Subsidizing via regulations or direct support prolongs the subterfuge we are discussing here. Perhaps, in perpetuity.

>Take away the control and the lobbying is pointless.

This social anarcho-darwinism nonsense doesn't refute my point that you are susceptible to influence and coercion.

You cannot "protect" yourself as the previous poster baselessly asserted.

>>ghastm+qa
There are a lot of mistakes here, but for one, lower economic means correlates with more children.

>>ghastm+(OP)
Has less purchasing power ever resulted in less children? Would you happen to have a source?