theothermeisnthere
1378
51
11
I know, I'm assuming a lot that this guy has reproduced but it's possible. I also suspect they know each other and they play this game so the man is probably not in any real danger. Especially if the tiger is well-fed.
Sebastopol140
Nah he's still in age to have kids, more kids if he already has, so it applies to him too.
Ekibwurm
this man's likely safe. some dimwit is probably going to go 'hold my beer' and he will win the award... and doesnt matter if well fed... a claw slap or a bite will end you...
PerthAussieMike
On the subject of Darwin Awards, I'm thinking many will be handed out to MAGA's after the November election.
tonehoundsmoser9
hushpuppyextraordinaire
Reproduced… like sexually?
cattlegrazer82
secondbest
This is why I propose a Darwin Award committee that takes care of any offspring as well.
evilspock
If you're going to get technical, it's not about having children - it's about those children surviving long enough to have children of their own.
FiftyShadesOfBroccoli
If you overthink it, you've also failed if you have nephews or nieces who each share 25% of your DNA. Or simply if you have any fecund relatives who share a considerable portion of your genome and might see to it that it stays in the gene pool. You'd have to eradicate or steilize your entire bloodline to win a proper Darwin Award. So maybe we shouldn't overcomplicate the joke
FiftyShadesOfBroccoli
PS: 25% is more than enough for natural selection to act upon. Menopause was selected for on a 25% basis. Investing resources in grandchildren and thus increasing their chance to survive to a reproductive age in good health proved more valuable than having more own children in the later life stages. Gay aunts and uncles can also invest time and resources to help raise the children of a sibling. This is known as kin selection. Your genetic traits can be selected for even if you have no own kids.
Hexrowe
Eh? "[T]he Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives" seems pretty damn clear, simple and straightforward, and one's relatives have nothing to do with it (unless they're somehow involved in your terminal incident, natch).
FiftyShadesOfBroccoli
Read my follow-up post, or google "kin selection". You don't have to procreate yourself for your genome to be naturally selected for and stay in the race.
Hexrowe
I'd suggest you read my response, but apparently this was enough to mute me over? *smh*
But anyway, I'm not even talking about genetics. I'm just saying that, looking at the rules, description, history and clearly stated intent behind the Darwin Awards, I feel like this would be less "overthinking" and more "rethinking the whole thing from the ground up".
wargarbel
trumpypumpyinyourrumpy
What would darwin say?
Hexrowe
Just shake his head and sigh, probably. Chuck was a kind dude.
DreadZeppelin
You can get a Darwin award at any time, it doesn't matter if you have kids. You just have to do something so stupid it kills you while knowing what you're doing.
PaperinoVB
I had for decades thought that for eligibility to DA one had to have never reproduced, so I verified on the official documentation, and you're right. Thank you. https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html
mindnumbingbraincandy
You're stopping yourself from future reproduction, you see
MonkeyJohn
So @OP is wrong, and we're all still eligible for a Darwin Award.
PaperinoVB
Exactly.
mindnumbingbraincandy
Because you're stopping future reproduction
DreadZeppelin
....Kills you or stops you from reproducing (further)
notacobra
It has been a long heated point of discussion without the - surprisingly rich - Darwin award community.
The general consensus is that one must only remove themselves from the gene pool, the existence of progeny has no impact on this.