The Sexual Cartel

The Corinthian wrote: »

People tend to forget that our particular subspecies, Homo Sapien Sapien, has been around for about 200,000 years (the overall Homo Sapien group for about 500,000 years). Civilization, as we call it, where we went from being hunter-gatherers to developing permanent settlements, underpinned by agriculture and leading to law, writing, organized religion, government and so on, only occurred with the Neolithic Revolution, which began only about 10,000 years ago.

So when we look at human evolution, it's important to remember that it was formed in the context of a hunter-gatherer paradigm, which made up 95% of our history.

Well yes and no. While Homo Sapiens has been around for a while, with early versions coming along 200,000 ago, they weren't quite "us". If you dressed one of those guys in jeans and a shirt, he'd look really odd, not quite human. Behaviourally and culturally there's little so far found to distinguish us from other humans at the time. That comes later, quite a bit later, say 50,000 years ago, when we appear to become fully human in the sense of today. So the gap between that change and farming, while a long time, isn't that wide and we may have been farming on a smaller scale long before that, like many Amazonian tribes today who are described as "hunter gatherers". It seems the first biscuits made from wild grains were made by our Neandertal cousins. Whoda thunk it. It's all very fuzzy and fluid, with very few lines in time and place saying "here be humans".

Interestingly the biggest evolution of humans on the genetic level occurred in the last 10-15,000 years. More changes in our genome in that time than in the previous 40,000 years. So one could also argue that we're a very different animal to the humans of 40,000 years ago who would otherwise look identical to us. Most are dietary adaptations, but there are many other changes. (Some seem to apply to sperm production in men. Something, some social pressure selected for these genes).

And what you describe is perfectly correct (at least as far as evolutionary biologists and anthropologists are concerned). Females of the species were highly disadvantaged by how we reproduce, which greatly limited their ability to provide food for themselves or their offspring. And naturally this led to a series of evolutionary strategies to allow the female to manage or control the male so that he would provide and protect her - hardly unique, as you'll find it in many other animal species, such as many species of birds and even primates, such as the bonobo.

True enough.

we're one of the few (if not the only) mammals to develop breasts before pregnancy, specifically for sexual reasons. Think about it; what use are breasts prior to child baring?

I'd reckon more for reproductive health reasons. Full breasts would broadcast reproductive health and age. So not sexual as such, or at least culture would have it's part to play there. Much like men losing the penis bone. The ability to get and maintain an erection became a matter of cardiovascular plumbing and a reflection of health which would also broadcast reproductive fitness. Older, or unhealthy males would be easy to spot. MIght explain why humans have the largest penises of the great apes. Another sexually selected gauge of physical and reproductive health.

we can't forget that some of it is directed against other women too

Interesting article that.

Nonetheless, none of this is concious. None of this is planned. Both men and women are hard-wired this way thanks to the 95% of our evolutionary history that overshadows our recent dalliance with civilization. So to suggest a conspiracy, some sort of organized effort by women is to ignore these biological facts and instead replace them with a fanciful theory which has absolutely no evidence supporting it. In my experience, jumping to such theories does tend to be misogynistic, as it presumes some form of premeditated malice on the part of women.

+1

Another evolutionary trait that's been examined has been the cuckold syndrome; when choosing a mate, evolution will cause a female to seek two things - good genetics and good provision. Sometimes you can't get both in one man, which leads to the old scenario whereby a woman is with a good provider, yet having sex (and children) with a handsome 'bad boy', on the side.

I call it the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" effect. Beyond the political/class undercurrent in the book, I reckon it describes this genetics/provision thing down pat.

On the other side of the scale, you can have a simple fact; such as that Asians are far less able, as a whole, to process alcohol than Europeans (a product of how both regions developed water purification differently over 10,000 years). While both factual and lacking any social or political agenda, such a statement would be considered racist by many.

Oh it would. Those genetic changes of the last 10-15,000 years caused many such differences to come out in different populations. Lactose and gluten tolerance are other examples. Research is showing other physical diffs between populations too. The social/political agenda does come into it and one area is completely out of bounds, that is any suggestion that genes/adaptations that may select for intelligence in a population. That's a biiiig no no.

KyussBishop wrote: »

All of that makes perfect sense anthropologically and in an evolutionary way, the bit where it snags for me though, are the implicit claims about limitations in human behaviour/psychology in society.

but there are limits in human behaviour and psychology in society and not just in the reproduction sphere. While we as societies do vary and do allow for some outliers, societies draw lines all over the place. We always have and we always will.

We can see clear examples of behaviour limits too. Take the Israeli Kibbutz social experiment. It was noted that boys and girls who grew up in such collective environments nearly always looked outside their kibbutz for partners. Because they'd grown up together as children the innate instinct to avoid incest kicked in, so they looked for people who weren't their kibbutz "brothers" and "sisters". Adopted brothers and sisters don't find each other sexually attractive(and society would go ape if they did), though genetically there is zero reason why they shouldn't.

Like I said the idea that we could trump nature with nurture(or culture) has it's roots in the counterculture 1960's and roots in more left wing political thought(though ironically your fascists would agree with them). It's not nature > nurture either. It's a two way street that puts limits and selection pressures on each other.

This is where it breaks down: A huge amount of the reasoning for this being the case in the past, is starting to disappear now as society changes, and (as good/interesting the points are in discussion here) I just don't see what is still left.

I think the idea that a huge amount is changing in society is a fallacy. It's one with legs I grant you, some of the ancient Greeks in their times reckoned so too. Every generation thinks they are inventing the future anew and every previous generation thinks "in my day, harrumph!". In the west there has been a gender revolution and sexual revolution over the last century. So here we are in the warm afterglow of the revolution and yes more people are having sex with more people*, however the vast majority of people, old and young, gay and straight, faced with apparently more choice than ever before still fall into the old serial monogamy vibe, like we've been doing for tens of thousands of years across tens of thousands of cultures and tens of thousands of societal changes. If someday we become more machine than man things will no doubt change, but so long as we're human I'm not so sure. More's the point what would be the advantage, the selective pressure that would make us change?





*travelers in 18th century London noted, even complained about the amount of openly copulating couples you'd see while walking about the place. In broad daylight too. Check out medieval maps of towns for street names like "Grabcock" and "Gropecúnt" lane". Sex wasn't invented in the 1960's we've been shagging in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people for as long as records are around. Victorian values and all that guff was the outlier, we're living more in the reset from that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well of course, you don't even have to go that far for our ancestors to be not quite 'us' - the development of the overbite, for example, is actually very recent. Average height, even more so.

Well the overbite thang is more a developmental response to softer foods rather than an inbuilt or genetic one. If you're brought up eating soft foods that require less chewing the palate doesn't develop in the same way, leading to things like overbites and tooth crowding. If you look at cultures where food is tougher their teeth, jaws and palate don't show these changes/issues. Their mouth bacteria ecosystem is different too, so caries is a lot less an issue(plus they eat a lot fewer simple carbs). One thing that stands out when you look at prehistoric skulls is dentists and especially orthodontists would be out of a job. They usually have fantastic teeth(unless very old).

What has happened at a base level is our teeth have gotten smaller in the last 50,000 years. As have our skulls(and brains funny enough). More recently more and more people are being born without the capacity to grow wisdom teeth. Likely as a response to smaller palates. What's interestng about that is people are hardly dying from impacted wisdom teeth before passing on their genes, so why this is happening is, like I say interesting.

Height is another developmental attribute and down to diet. In medieval times the aristocracy were notably taller than the peasant classes. Back then tall=rich for the most part. Japanese Americans grow in stature generation by generation compared to their relatives back in Japan.

The point I was making was that even in our current subspecies iteration, our entire history of civilization (including prehistoric civilization) is a relatively short, and while the changes that came with its development have been profound, we would do well to remember that there's a lot of evolutionary history that preceded it which can't be forgotten completely either.

Oh sure, but it's clear from the genetic adaptations that have occurred in the last 10 odd thousand years that we have changed quite a bit too.

Didn't know about Neanderthal biscuits though - interesting.

Yea and they weren't that short either. Same height as we were back then and one lad found in Iran was nearly a 6 footer. Note to self avoid picking a fight with him

KyussBishop wrote: »

True, but these lines get redrawn and recede all the time - as we see now regarding homsexuality and other gender/orientation issues.

In our culture yes, however there have been cultures where gender and sexual orientation was more fluid, indeed in quite the number of cultures intersex people were feted. Like I said there's little new under the sun. Cultural responses to it varied, but the range of human sexuality was always there. The main difference in current liberalisation is that the culture is more comfortable with the range and the outliers and there are more of us, but we aren't the first. The outliers are more and more accepted but the "mainstream" has changed little enough.

The issue with saying avoiding incest is an innate instinct (implying psychological nature, rather than nurture), is that is making unsubstantiated implications about human psychology (I do agree that applies to our reproductive biology though, of course); I think that is better explained by social pressure, than by instinct, especially when you take reproduction out of the picture.

I'd say six of one, half dozen of the other. EG it has been shown in a few studies that people prefer partners with very different immune systems and this is transmitted through scent. Siblings will have very similar immune systems and scents so there is a biological boundary there. Seeking out novel genes makes good sense, avoiding incest also makes good sense, especially in a species like ours that is quite narrow genetically given our sheer numbers.

in general there's an increasing (but slow) liberalization of many parts of society, which I just don't think has ever been seen on quite the same social/economic/intellectual scale before.

For me the main difference is the scale.

I think some of the advantages of dropping strict-monogamy or serial-monogamy, are a lot of the disadvantages it causes, like cheating/affairs (a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it, it seems), plus divorce and such, which hurt partners and children often, plus just the dissatisfaction a lot of people have if they start to feel trapped in a relationship over time (as happens with a lot of families); it's certainly not straight-forward as being an advantage mind, it's just different way of doing things with its own set of issues.

Depends on where the advantage lies too. Non monogamy is an advantage to those who want it, but what about the disadvantage to those who may not? Taking the taboo away won't ease the hurt of someone who is being "cheated on" even if you take away the cheating label.

Haha, yes I remember reading about that before - I'm certainly curious how social conservatism was back then, as I would think the church still played a large part in things at the time.

It seems it did and it didn't. It didn't seem to have the power to influence as much as say a taliban type setup or indeed a 50's ireland type set up. Plus by the time of the rolling plagues(not just the black death) that ran through Europe on a yearly basis killing large chunks of the population and reducing life expectancy to under 30 that would have had a social effect. Like people shagging like rabbits through the London Blitz. If you may die tomorrow you may get more religious, but you're also a lot less likely to give a feck about strict moral codes too.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here is actually a good article I just came across, on evolutionary psychology, which is specifically about the problem I picked up on, of drawing claims about behaviour/psychology based on genetic selection:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/28/tackling-pinkers-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology/

Oh I'd agree. Genetics/evolution are the go to solution these days. The scientific fashion de jour. It's applied to damn near everything and considered near infallible. Very much a case of if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. We're only beginning to scratch the surface, but our egos often tell us otherwise.

clairefontaine wrote: »

The psychs like to use biology because they are still deluding themselves and the world they are a science, when they are so interpretive it seems more like an art. And that's fine that its an art, but its the pretence that bugs me.

I'd agree. Take depression. It's suggested that near 1 on 4 are genetically predisposed to the condition, yet there are cultures where it's notably rarer than others. Same humans, same genes yet... Type 2 diabetes another that's "in the genes", yet there are again cultures where it's pretty much unknown. Clearly it's much more environmental and I'd say exactly the same about depression.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is actually.

yea it really is. Hell TC I was born a lamarckian and I'll die a lamarckian, so it's an easier fit for me.

Well, the same goes for younger generations of Japanese. The shift from the traditional to a Western one has seen a number of changes in Asia; increased height, decrease in health issues associated with an Asian diet (e.g. high blood pressure) and a corresponding increase in health issues associated with a Western diet (e.g. cancer).

True. Even so it can be difficult to apply a disease topography when we're dealing with different populations with different local adaptations. As an example the Japanese also suffer much less with tobacco related illnesses, yet for a goodly while smoked like chimneys. For me it's clear that different human populations have very different responses to environment.

Basically, we're not as homogenous a species as is popular to believe(even PC to believe. I said the PC word :eek::eek:). Even in genetics we can see this. Non African folks have Neandertal DNA*, up to 5% and in the past(like Otzi the iceman) that was even higher. Go to some east Asian populations and we see nigh on 10% of their genes come from archaic humans. Makes sense, humans from the get go like to get jiggy jiggy.

And that's no bad thing either IMHO. TBH I dislike the idea that is a given these days, that humans are basically the same. Yes I DO see the real racist shíte that might be extrapolated from the idea we were "races" in the past and the horrible results that came out of that. However I think it's more important to tell the story of how we all came to be this fantastic bunch of muppets and kings who we are today. The reason I hate racism is not because it's obviously moral to do so, it's because it's obviously daft in a scientific way.

Then again I might be odd in this. I firmly believe the Neandertal and Denisovan(and undiscovered others) folks before us were people just like you and me, just different and different is good. Indeed, given a couple of hundred million of us carry their genes today, I'd say they didn't go nearly as extinct as the easy story goes(Speaking as someone with 4 odd % Neandertal DNA, I'm just rooting for my peeeeople** ) I like that we may be all "sub species" of "human", each of us with our own adaptive advantages. Bringing difference, but with mutual recognition, is for me a way better way forward for our humanity. It makes us more future proof too.

Pre-Neolithic man wasn't actually short. It was the shift from a meat rich diet to a cereal based one that did that.

True enough. I recall a convo I had with an archaelogist many moons ago about this. She said that it was often easy enough to spot the transition from Hunter gatherer to farmer in the robustness of the remains. The former was usually bigger, taller and stronger, with higher bone density than the pastoralists that followed.





* you can be sure that African folks have their own archaic DNA going on, it;s just that it's harder to see, because of preservation issues and there's an element of "oh well they're different, even among the most "right on". Bollocks I say. Africans have the widest genetic variance on this planet and they didn't lick it from a stone.

**from a very early age I was fascinated by them. These amazing looking people who survived countless ice ages and shít. And this was in the 70's when they were seen as a shambling buffoon. I don't buy the idea of race memory, but by god I was a good example of it On holidays to Lourdes(very fash in the 70's) followed by trips to Spain and other parts of France I tried to collect bits of them. I found a fair few too(and pre regulation it was so easy). An 8 year old weirdo I was. Nada has changed much on that score.