[extropy-chat] on Spike's big ass theory

Spike spike66 at comcast.net
Thu Nov 18 06:19:53 UTC 2004


> Alejandro Dubrovsky
> Subject: [extropy-chat] on Spike's big ass theory
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e
=2&u=/nm/20041117/sc_nm/science_running_dc
> 
> By Patricia Reaney
> Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like
> creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to
> cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on 
> Wednesday...


I'm thinking this over, and it does have some merits.
It actually competes with my big ass theory, which
condenses to something like this: humans have some
exaggerated features resulting from sex selection,
not from inherent functional usefulness, the two most
remarkable examples being pecs and gluts.

I have been pondering the counter indicators: what 
functions could our enormous pecs and butts have, 
if not for simply attracting mates?  Large pecs 
would be good for hurling objects, which
would be enormously useful in hunting.  

Here the argument sounds a little circular, so
please ponder before responding.  If large pecs and 
gluts helps the hunter hurl and run, then potential 
mates capable of logic might reason that the individual
with these traits might be a superior choice for 
a mate.  This individual might be better able to 
chase, slay and bring home the bacon.

Today we do not criticize one for choosing a
mate with more earning potential.  If life were
dependent upon hunting, so much the more advisable
for choosing one with the wherewithal to hunt.

This all becomes quite difficult to unravel.  Clearly
the fastest runners have great butts, as amply
demonstrated by the Olympic sprinters.  But perhaps
humans chose to mate with the best butts, which
*resulted in* fast runners.  Perhaps humans chose
big chests for looks, which resulted in good
weapons hurlers.  Perhaps we chose big headed
mates because they were cute, which resulted in
a really smart species.

My notion that we have butts, chests and brains 
greater than strictly necessary for hunting then would 
depend on the one example I can think of that goes the
other way: the knees.  We dislike big knobby
knees, right?  Models of both genders have
understated knees.  Perhaps humans selected 
undersized knees for cosmetic reasons, which
today results in the knees being a general problem
area.  The knee cartilage often wears out 
before our other parts: the load bearing area is 
too small, resulting in the pressure being too large.

Either that or I am subconsciously trying to 
explain my own lack of success with the opposite 
gender in my teenage years by blaming my 
flat chest and bony ass.

spike







More information about the extropy-chat mailing list