From: Wei Dai (weidai@eskimo.com)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 11:59:20 MST
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:44:34PM -0500, CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> If low wealth and power eventually blocked reproduction then, yes,
> your restriction would take hold. And, through most of history, that
> *has* been true, but today it's been nixed.
Maybe it's nixed for females, but males still face sexual selection and
low wealth and power do block reproduction for males today.
> Specific genes, no; we're not that far along in understanding the human
> genome. I speculated a few years ago that operational genes were those
> that caused humans to delay reproduction until they've picked up the
> skills available in their groups. So, if you encounter somebody more
> knowledgeable than you, or new fun things to do (useful for sexual selection)
> you delay reproduction until you learn that stuff. In a tribe, you're
> going to catch up with everybody you know before too long. In modern
> society, you're never satisfied - there's always something to learn and
> something to do, so reproduction gets delayed indefinitely.
In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, the only way to delay
reproduction was to not have sex. People don't experience a lower sexual
drive when they encounter somebody more knowledgeable or new fun things to
do, so I don't think your hypothesis is correct.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:15 MST