Darwin Awards Winners (And Contenders)

[iceman]

enough of the 2017 thread already.

Suspected Poacher Killed By Elephant, Remains Eaten By Lions In South Africa

Only the man’s skull and pants were recovered by rangers in Kruger National Park.

[KQ]

enough of the 2017 thread already.

Cool - thanks!

[Game Over]

Couple things

1) not a Darwin Award. See quote below

"It is very sad to see the daughters of the deceased mourning the loss of their father, and worse still, only being able to recover very little of his remains."

2) the piece makes it sound like the lions ate everything but his skull and pants.

Lions don’t eat bones. The bones were likely eaten by hyenas or vultures.

[iceman]

I'm not sure what that quote has to do with whether or not the guy is Darwin-worthy.

[Game Over]

Because his genes have already been passed on. It’s the very basis of Darwinism.

[iceman]

Ah. All righty then.

[Game Over]

Yea it’s not about how long one lives it’s about leaving their genes behind in the gene pool.

I think the term is evolutionary fitness or Darwinian fitness? Shit it’s been 20 years since school I can’t remember.

[jono]

Only relevant if he was post menopausal. He still saved the gene pool from More of his offspring.

[questionable_character]

Yea it’s not about how long one lives it’s about leaving their genes behind in the gene pool.

I think the term is evolutionary fitness or Darwinian fitness? Shit it’s been 20 years since school I can’t remember.

well, it seems like he won't be spreading further seed...

[KQ]

To my mind, in the context that has historically been used in these threads, the "Darwin" aspect is that the individual died because they were too stupid to survive.

[char_]

Couple things

1) not a Darwin Award. See quote below



2) the piece makes it sound like the lions ate everything but his skull and pants.

Lions don’t eat bones. The bones were likely eaten by hyenas or vultures.

The offical Darwin Award website disagrees:

"So the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced."

https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

[KQ]

The offical Darwin Award website disagrees:

"So the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced."

https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

Awesome, and in keeping with my train of thought:

A concrete example will help illuminate the discussion. Imagine the sole reason a man wins a Darwin Award is because he has the hypothetical Explosive Stupidity gene, a gene that causes him to ignore the potential downside of playing with bombs. The man who possesses this imaginary gene tends to minimize potential dangers by rationalizing that he is "good with explosives" and will not be harmed. No matter how many hours of film footage he sees showing flying body parts, and no matter how many friends he knows who were injured in explosions, he will never be convinced that he is anything but "good with explosives" and beyond harm's reach. So one day he blows himself up playing Russian roulette with a land mine, like the three fellows you'll read about in "Fatal Footsie" (page 186), and his son is left to bury the ashes.

[PB]

And the offspring will probably inherit Darwin's Curse, so extra amusement.

[Game Over]

Well that is quite stupid. Its totallly misnamed as it has nothing to do with Darwin.

After a quick search I saw this. It’s spot on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk...rds#Not_Darwin

The "Darwin Awards" have nothing at all to do with Darwin. An individual among thousands or millions is hardly likely to have influenced the gene pool, and certainly not on account of their misjudgment in an isolated situation.

If you follow forums, chatrooms, etc., you'll find that a huge proportion of people now believe that someone who does something stupid "deserved to die".

It's just such lousy science. In trying to sell a ha-ha book that ridicules other people's mistakes, Wendy Northcutt and her publisher, Dutton of Penguin Group, have done a tremendous disservice.

The Darwin Awards are the worst, most corrosive form of mass media. Luddites have a more viable viewpoint.

Could someone who has the time and patience please take convert this piece of crap, non-encyclopedic material to about 200 words? 76.102.1.193 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Darwin Awards are not really based on scientific fact, and really are more of an internet phenomena than anything. I'm trying to fix up the article to the point where it illustrates them as humor, and not scientific fact, to remove any confusion. WTF? (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[char_]

Well that is quite stupid. Its totallly misnamed as it has nothing to do with Darwin.

After a quick search I saw this. It’s spot on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk...rds#Not_Darwin

Yawn.

[babybear]

I'd rather hear about funny/interesting anecdotes than dwell on some arbitrary rules
double yawn

[rideit]

Some people are dull at parties

[iceman]

so. anybody die stupidly lately?

[muted]

I'm still here.

[Game Over]

Arbitrary rules? Jesus H these “rules” go completely against Darwin’s studies. You all should be embarrassed.

[tbssux]

Arbitrary rules? Jesus H these “rules” go completely against Darwin’s studies. You all should be embarrassed.

How about a slight re-brand?

"Darwin Awards: proof that our modern society enables stupid people to procreate".

We're living in a padded room (in multiple senses). It's harder for natural selection to kick in and do it's job.

[Alpinord]

Then there are these guys and gals:

[old goat]

Because his genes have already been passed on. It’s the very basis of Darwinism.

I think you're being a little too literal here. Had any vaccines recently? (I believe the man is funning with us, at least I hope he is.)

[GoldMember]

Arbitrary rules? Jesus H these “rules” go completely against Darwin’s studies. You all should be embarrassed.

You must be a lot fun at parties, Steep... "Lighten up, Francis"

[smartyiak]

Some people are dull at parties