[extropy-chat] evolution again

Spike spike66 at comcast.net
Mon Nov 29 05:44:12 UTC 2004


Hara Ra
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] evolution again

>Well, first of all, the selection might be more subtle, regarding
resources between men.
 
Of course.  How do we ask the right question?

>Many years ago, a female friend of mine remarked that if "all else were
equal, size means something". 
>{snipped gory details}
 
Here is how we sharpen this line of inquiry.  We are trying to
understand
why humans have this oddball shape with the curiously oversized 
subsystems such as genitals, heads and butts (possibly in that order).
 
Look at those systems that humans have which are larger than
would be optimal for maximum survival.  It isn't immediately
obvious why a particular oversized muscle might have negative
survival advantage, but muscles do use energy and must be
fed, requiring the individual to slay and eat more.  So a large
muscle has its survival cost.  If it has a balancing survival benefit, 
then there is nothing to explain.
 
In the previous discussion, my own puzzlement at our large
asses was partially addressed.  They may help us run, which is
surely a survival benefit.  Considering the survival cost/benefit
ratio then, those systems with the highest ratios would be
those systems most likely to have been developed by
mate selection, not survival selection.  Does that make sense?
 
Now the question becomes: what human subsystems have
the highest survival cost/benefit ratio?  For the reasons
suggested last week, it probably isn't our rears, altho the
C/B ratio of those magnificent buns would probably be greater than 1.  
I once would have argued that the highest ratio was our heads, for we 
lose a lot of heat through those bulbous organs.  Many highly successful
organisms do fine with far less in the old brain case.  But clearly
brains are some good for survival, especially if one must understand
seasonal cycles for instance.
 
The very highest C/B ratio system for humans might then be the
penis, for clearly it is far larger than necessary to pass along
the genetic material, as evidenced by the far less well endowed but
anatomically similar chimps.  But the cost is also immediately
obvious: in a pre-technology pre-clothing world, the large penis
would be a clear liability in a fight.  Being highly sensitive and
vulnerable, a larger target is not a good thing.  Consider the fights 
you have personally witnessed.  Many of them end with a direct hit 
south of the border, do they not?  One hit there and that fight is
oooooverrrrr.  So the survival cost of a large penis is immediately 
obvious.
 
Does it then follow that the largest survival cost to benefit
ratio in humans is the penis?  If so, would we not conclude
that its development was driven by mate selection?  If so,
does it not follow that if there is introduced some mechanism 
which can supress the mate selection mechanism (such as
clothing) would not the size of the penis be eventually driven 
downward by survival selection?  If so, would not this predict 
that those human subgroups which clothed themselves first 
have had more time to reduce those wildly oversized 
high C/B ratio systems?  And the last to clothe human
subgroups the least time?
 
If I dare to stretch this notion a little further, it would apply
to *all* human characteristics that may have been driven to
higher than unity survival cost/benefit ratio.  That predicts
that those human subgroups that have developed in the
harsh northern climates (which would have required clothing
earlier) should have smaller gentals, less of everything in the
way of things we consider sexy, less of broad shouders and 
narrow hips, less in the protruding buttocks department,
less in female breasts, generally less overt sexiness.  Those
groups which were shaped by mate selection in milder climates 
(which would allow them to clothe themselves later, if ever) might 
then have more subsystems driven to higher C/B ratios.  
 
So those humans subgroups that came of age in mild
climates might be expected to be sexier.  They also
get the last laugh *in a sense* because in modern
technological times, *all* humans live in the mildest
of environments: indoors, with heaters.  So they are
not carrying all the non-necessary and mostly
non-sexy cold climate adaptations.
 
On the other hand, the cold weather human subgroups would 
have been required to master technology sooner and to a
greater extent, in order to survive the harsh climate.  So
the cold-climate bulbous heads would have had a *smaller* 
survival cost/benefit ratio than the same individual in a
mild climate.
 
We are apparently entering an age when we will be able
to design our own bodies.  Perhaps humankind will eventually
be a curious combination of sexy mild-climate adapted bodies 
with harsh-climate adapted brains.
 
spike
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20041128/b45f4861/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list