4 ms·

So, the evolution of human goes. At least if we look on this from perspective of evolutionary theory of sex[1], which states that males are subject of natural

by ordu 9y ago

So, the evolution of human goes. At least if we look on this from perspective of evolutionary theory of sex[1], which states that males are subject of natural selection and it is the main reason behind inventing sex differences in evolution. Unsuccessful males are cheaper to population than unsuccessful females, so there are less unsuccessful females and more unsuccessful males. From ETS perspective this reasearch an evidence of evolution, if there are no differences in reproductive ability between males and females, than evolution is stalled. But we see such a difference, than it is possible that evolution is goes. And probablity of it is bound to likelyhood of ETS to be true. I wander, what the selection factor is? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodakyan%27s_evolutionary_theory_of_sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodakyan%27s_evolutionary_the...

candiodari 9y ago
The rules in societies like these would have been akin to the rules in islam/sharia. A woman is only allowed one partner, only men are allowed multiple partners (men may never even as much as see some of their women/concubines, and you'd be surprised how common that is), and getting caught (or even suspected in most cases) with another results in extra-painful execution. These societal rules are self-propagating because men can't break them since they're denied access to women by physical obstacles (walk around in a middle eastern muslim village and you'll understand why, although it's sort of visible in many movies). Women can't break this since if any woman or group of women tries to they get gang raped in the street. In case you're wondering families will not divide inheritance but will choose (or even adopt) a favorite son who'll continue the business. That doesn't necessarily mean the rest get kicked into the street (happens, though). There is a ton of "illegal" sex in these societies though because there are masses of women who are technically the property (that's what it boils down to, may be called married, but even in muslim societies where it technically is marriage they don't bother saying a woman is married, they just say she's "this guy's") of a man, but haven't so much as seen the guy for years, so if almost any man can get close to them it probably isn't too hard to convince them to have intercourse. Walking around in these villages, one thing becomes very obvious : this is not the way to go about creating a peaceful society.
- ordu 9y ago
  ETS speaks nothing about societies or their rules. ETS was invented by studying animals and plants and it stick to genotype and phenotype distributions while explaining role of sex in evolution. And I do not like the idea to speculate about societies and how to build them properly starting from some evolutionary reaserch. It is different levels of abstraction. It is complex to do it right, while stretching your mind over several levels. It needs a broad knowledge, high intelligence and a lot of time spent in thinking and discussing matters with others highly intelligent and broadly educated. Look, between evolution theory and sociology there are physiology, neuroscience and psychology. There are a lot of progress lately in psysiology and neuroscience, but psychology almost 150 years struggling to become an empirical science. There are some progress, but it is not convincing. Also I'm not sure that psysiology and neuroscience progress is sufficient to talk about brigde between theory of evolution and sociology. There are tremendous amounts of work for scientists ahead, which must be done before we can start to reason about society from evolutionary perspective.

by ordu 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

The rules in societies like these would have been akin to the rules in islam/sharia. A woman is only allowed one partner, only men are allowed multiple partners (men may never even as much as see some of their women/concubines, and you'd be surprised how common that is), and getting caught (or even suspected in most cases) with another results in extra-painful execution. These societal rules are self-propagating because men can't break them since they're denied access to women by physical obstacles (walk around in a middle eastern muslim village and you'll understand why, although it's sort of visible in many movies). Women can't break this since if any woman or group of women tries to they get gang raped in the street. In case you're wondering families will not divide inheritance but will choose (or even adopt) a favorite son who'll continue the business. That doesn't necessarily mean the rest get kicked into the street (happens, though). There is a ton of "illegal" sex in these societies though because there are masses of women who are technically the property (that's what it boils down to, may be called married, but even in muslim societies where it technically is marriage they don't bother saying a woman is married, they just say she's "this guy's") of a man, but haven't so much as seen the guy for years, so if almost any man can get close to them it probably isn't too hard to convince them to have intercourse. Walking around in these villages, one thing becomes very obvious : this is not the way to go about creating a peaceful society.

ordu 9y ago
ETS speaks nothing about societies or their rules. ETS was invented by studying animals and plants and it stick to genotype and phenotype distributions while explaining role of sex in evolution. And I do not like the idea to speculate about societies and how to build them properly starting from some evolutionary reaserch. It is different levels of abstraction. It is complex to do it right, while stretching your mind over several levels. It needs a broad knowledge, high intelligence and a lot of time spent in thinking and discussing matters with others highly intelligent and broadly educated. Look, between evolution theory and sociology there are physiology, neuroscience and psychology. There are a lot of progress lately in psysiology and neuroscience, but psychology almost 150 years struggling to become an empirical science. There are some progress, but it is not convincing. Also I'm not sure that psysiology and neuroscience progress is sufficient to talk about brigde between theory of evolution and sociology. There are tremendous amounts of work for scientists ahead, which must be done before we can start to reason about society from evolutionary perspective.