6 ms·

If that were the case why did humans not evolve to have 17 times more female babies than male? The chance of a billionaire having a son is 65%. https://www.bbc

If that were the case why did humans not evolve to have 17 times more female babies than male? The chance of a billionaire having a son is 65%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161014-why-billionaires-have-more-sons https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161014-why-billionaires...

eafer 3y ago
> If that were the case why did humans not evolve to have 17 times more female babies than male? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
HPsquared 3y ago
Worker bees. Not everyone needs to reproduce for the group to prosper.
- mo_42 3y ago
  I think we cannot compare humans with worker bees as these bees cannot reproduce. Basically, only the beehive is an complete organism. For the latter part, I'd argue along the lines of the selfish genes (Dawkins): Not an organism wants to reproduce but rather the individual genes. They use the body as a vehicle for that. So it can still make sense for an individual to not reproduce and increase the chances of the same genes to be passed on (e.g., when an uncle without kids supports the kids of his siblings).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Veuxdo 3y ago
While a son would have a much lower chance of reproducing, if he does, he'll reproduce a lot. I think that's the balance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
causi 3y ago
The ideal sex balance of progeny depends on thousands of different factors, not just what fraction of males and females reproduce.
incrudible 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
cratermoon 3y ago
> The chance of a billionaire having a son is 65% An acknowledged offspring. How many unknown kids do they father with mistresses? How many pregnancies get terminated? More darkly, how many wives of millionaires terminate pregnancies before 12 weeks when the fetus is female, but not male?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > More darkly, how many wives of millionaires [...] Billionaires lead very different lives than millionaires
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    Typo. I meant billionaires. You probably figured that out, though.
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      Yeah sorry, I mostly wanted to make sure the B didn't get dropped in any replies to you
- fragmede 3y ago
  And why leave anything to chance? IVF makes it possible to pick the gender of the child, among other attributes. What's impossibly expensive for you and me is a Tuesday medical appointment at the wing of the hospital the billionaire bought.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Having more female than male babies might result in more offspring in total for the species, but it also creates a strong genetic "advantage" (or, you could say a gradient in the fitness landscape) for the few individuals who themselves have more male children. This creates an evolutionary feedback pressure that results in the number of reproducing-age men and women to be approximately equal. For example, imagine just for argument that the probability of the offspring being male or female is proportional to the number of sperm that carry either X or Y chromosomes. And imagine that this ratio is controlled by a gene, and that initially, the gene is such that across the whole population, 17 sperm carry an X chromosome for each that carries a Y chromosome. In this population, any male who has a mutation in this gene resulting in them producing a closer-to-equal number of X and Y sperm will have a reproductive fitness advantage, because they will have more male children amidst a majority-female population. Those mutations will therefore spread until the advantage disappears. In order for 17-to-1 female:male ratio to be stable, you'd basically need to have a period of thousands of years in which, for whatever reason, 16/17ths of women do not reproduce. That's the exact opposite of the condition described in this article.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  If there is a lot of "polygamy" (Genghis Khan levels), wouldn't it be more advantageous for upper-class parents to have male offspring (who will each have many, many children) and for lower-class parents to have female offspring (who will at least have children, unlike lower-class males)?
  - Aperocky 3y ago
    Biology is a great equalizer. Being upper class and lower class apparently doesn't have significant biological indicator to affect strategies such as these. The poorest among our society are still mostly drawing in the same amount of calories, and feel happiness and sadness, age mostly in the same way. There are no indications that billionaires are significantly happier/healthier than us - in fact these indicators are mostly tangential with wealth past a certain point.
    - 3y ago
caesil 3y ago
The blunt answer is that evolution benefits from males killing other males for breeding rights much more than it would from every male getting a harem.
pengaru 3y ago
If you think this is inconceivably lopsided, wait until you see Elephant Seals mating on the shores of Point Reyes. Those bulls have one hell of a job come mating season. But I'm pretty sure evolution still wants heaps of genetically diverse males to come out and compete in the reproductive lottery. Even if only a few of them win, they're the .. well, winners, genetically speaking. With fewer participating at an existence level, you'd have would-be losers succeeding for lack of competition.
paulddraper 3y ago
Because nature would rather roll the dice with 17 men, and get the best genes.
mcphage 3y ago
It doesn't seem like it was a continuous process; rather a temporary state.

eafer 3y ago

> If that were the case why did humans not evolve to have 17 times more female babies than male? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

HPsquared 3y ago

Worker bees. Not everyone needs to reproduce for the group to prosper.

mo_42 3y ago
I think we cannot compare humans with worker bees as these bees cannot reproduce. Basically, only the beehive is an complete organism. For the latter part, I'd argue along the lines of the selfish genes (Dawkins): Not an organism wants to reproduce but rather the individual genes. They use the body as a vehicle for that. So it can still make sense for an individual to not reproduce and increase the chances of the same genes to be passed on (e.g., when an uncle without kids supports the kids of his siblings).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Veuxdo 3y ago

While a son would have a much lower chance of reproducing, if he does, he'll reproduce a lot. I think that's the balance.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

causi 3y ago

The ideal sex balance of progeny depends on thousands of different factors, not just what fraction of males and females reproduce.

incrudible 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

cratermoon 3y ago

> The chance of a billionaire having a son is 65% An acknowledged offspring. How many unknown kids do they father with mistresses? How many pregnancies get terminated? More darkly, how many wives of millionaires terminate pregnancies before 12 weeks when the fetus is female, but not male?

Zambyte 3y ago
> More darkly, how many wives of millionaires [...] Billionaires lead very different lives than millionaires
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Typo. I meant billionaires. You probably figured that out, though.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Yeah sorry, I mostly wanted to make sure the B didn't get dropped in any replies to you
fragmede 3y ago
And why leave anything to chance? IVF makes it possible to pick the gender of the child, among other attributes. What's impossibly expensive for you and me is a Tuesday medical appointment at the wing of the hospital the billionaire bought.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

Having more female than male babies might result in more offspring in total for the species, but it also creates a strong genetic "advantage" (or, you could say a gradient in the fitness landscape) for the few individuals who themselves have more male children. This creates an evolutionary feedback pressure that results in the number of reproducing-age men and women to be approximately equal. For example, imagine just for argument that the probability of the offspring being male or female is proportional to the number of sperm that carry either X or Y chromosomes. And imagine that this ratio is controlled by a gene, and that initially, the gene is such that across the whole population, 17 sperm carry an X chromosome for each that carries a Y chromosome. In this population, any male who has a mutation in this gene resulting in them producing a closer-to-equal number of X and Y sperm will have a reproductive fitness advantage, because they will have more male children amidst a majority-female population. Those mutations will therefore spread until the advantage disappears. In order for 17-to-1 female:male ratio to be stable, you'd basically need to have a period of thousands of years in which, for whatever reason, 16/17ths of women do not reproduce. That's the exact opposite of the condition described in this article.

HPsquared 3y ago
If there is a lot of "polygamy" (Genghis Khan levels), wouldn't it be more advantageous for upper-class parents to have male offspring (who will each have many, many children) and for lower-class parents to have female offspring (who will at least have children, unlike lower-class males)?
- Aperocky 3y ago
  Biology is a great equalizer. Being upper class and lower class apparently doesn't have significant biological indicator to affect strategies such as these. The poorest among our society are still mostly drawing in the same amount of calories, and feel happiness and sadness, age mostly in the same way. There are no indications that billionaires are significantly happier/healthier than us - in fact these indicators are mostly tangential with wealth past a certain point.
  - 3y ago

caesil 3y ago

The blunt answer is that evolution benefits from males killing other males for breeding rights much more than it would from every male getting a harem.

pengaru 3y ago

If you think this is inconceivably lopsided, wait until you see Elephant Seals mating on the shores of Point Reyes. Those bulls have one hell of a job come mating season. But I'm pretty sure evolution still wants heaps of genetically diverse males to come out and compete in the reproductive lottery. Even if only a few of them win, they're the .. well, winners, genetically speaking. With fewer participating at an existence level, you'd have would-be losers succeeding for lack of competition.

paulddraper 3y ago

Because nature would rather roll the dice with 17 men, and get the best genes.

mcphage 3y ago

It doesn't seem like it was a continuous process; rather a temporary state.