The Sexes of Man

The Sexes of Man

Standard Darwinism as applied to genes would indicate that the optimum strategy for a single cell is to have as many offspring as possible .

But how did multicellular organisms then manage to survive in competition with single cells ? After all , it takes more energy to run a multicellular : the organizational overheads .

Their edge is “tough times” . Some cells in multicellular organisms learned to utilize neighbour cells . Since these resources were close , the energy of utilization compared to a unicell hunting food was low .

If times are good , unicellular organisms like bacteria are inclined to eat multicellulars alive or eat their food (cf virulent tropical diseases , etc) . Unicellulars are still by far the biggest biomass on the planet .

If times are bad , the multicellular lives off the designated sacrificial cells , while the surrounding unicellulars die off en masse .

So the optimal environment for multicelluar organism to evolve and flourish is in environment of periodic scarcities . ie Tidal pools , seasons , Milankovich cycles , meteor strikes, volcanoes etc .

Note:the synoptic argument below is in time- and logical sequence .

Some cells became more important than others : in good times cells differentiated , in bad times the less important were scavenged first . Cells learned to package themselves for neat absorbtion (apoptosis) . Organs formed . Only some cells reproduced new organisms . This was a huge saving : stem cells differentiated from egg-cells . The immune system developed. (Differentiated stem cells) . Sex developed as a immune system response against attackers (parasites and diseases ) . Sex also had huge energy saving advantages , since a single gene-set could populate an eco- niche (and deny it to competitors) , but nearly all the males could be sacrificed when times are bad . One would expect a really strong hardwired tendency for males to die near their offspring . (Cf wars , exiles)

Parental care evolved . Now surpluses could be transferred from the adults to the children as long as the adults lived ( or were programmed to care ) .

To put it another way : a gene group can ensure better survival by having a non-reproducing group of relatives. This is but our old principle above where close cells are used as reserves . The only question is the exact percentage .

If a constant percentage (r) of every human generation is postulated to lead to offspring , the relevant percentages for maximized resources per child are
Grandchildren Offspring : 79.3701% No-Offspring : 20.6299%
Great-Grandchildren Offspring : 88.0749% No-Offspring : 11.3251%
(This derivation is available on request , but can easily be duplicated . Just remember that the surplus per generation is the children the “non-offspring” lot did not have , and that the surplus only accumulated after the “non-offspring” should have had children (ie one generation))

As long as the number of offspring per parent remains constant (regardless of 1 to 1 , 1 to many) parentages , these percentages will remain .

What does this mean ?
With humans , it means there is a large niche ( 11% to 21% ) of any generation where having no offspring means that the chances of a gene-groups viable survival is optimal . ie It pays the society to have 11-21% childless people .

The other sexes of Man
.
These are the gays , asexuals , misanthropes , explorers and other assorted misfits .

(Note recent statistical finding that the female relatives of gay men have more children than average : either a gene fit or the women looking around and thinking they can afford more children on expectations . )

Furthermore , if the birthrate decreases , this niche decreases by between the square and the cube of the decrease the birthrate during the period of the decrease . (Vicious)
Ie a halving of the birthrate will mean a decrease in the niche to ( 3% to 5%) at the best . Note that this is only applicable during the transition . Once it is stabilized , it will return to the 11-22 % range . But things in the interim will not be pleasant .

A societal decrease in tolerance of 8% can only be described as a turn towards fundamentalism .

This is structural:ie driven by factors effectively outside human control .

In both the West and Muslim worlds , the chance of having viable offspring in the 2nd and 3rd generation has decreased markedly . In the West by decreasing birthrates , and in the Muslim world by a static resource base divided by an increasing population . This tends to fundamentalism . Ironically enough , it does not hold (at the present moment) for China,India,Japan because of high growth rates .

But if a worldwide recession (a-la-1930’s) set in (probability +-45%) , then China and Japan could hunker down , but India would be forced into a fundamentalist Hindu expansionist phase . This would trigger a US - India alliance which would grind Islam fine , re-colonise Africa and eye South-America with a hungry eye . Australia is already past its carrying capacity .

To put it in other words , get off-planet . The monkeys are soon going to render this one uninhabitable .

Cheers
Andre