3 ms·

He's wrong for a simple reason: Breasts are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. So even if it had an advantage at som

He's wrong for a simple reason: Breasts are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. So even if it had an advantage at some point in time, as he describes, rather than maintaining an expensive evolutionary line, this "fashion" would change quickly. I think that breast serve a concrete purpose that is essential for our society. And the fact that we have breasts is strongly tied in with the difference between us and other animals. We are different from other animals in that we are more clever and more social. We are also different in that we have breasts. It's likely that the two are tied together. My theory is this: breasts are an age indicator. In traditional human societies it's difficult to judge the reproductive health of a woman. A woman can hide her true reproductive health by various means (like body painting or ovulating on the sly), so as our societies grew bigger and bigger, it was neccessary for the society as a group to make non-hideable means of judging how fit the particular woman is. Breasts benefit the community more than they benefit the woman according to my theory. I.e, humans are supremely social, and the best evolved human is the one that works the best to move the entire community forward. A society of very selfish people will not survive. Humans have certain traits that help the community more than they help themselves. Breasts could be one of them. Small, large, medium, the size of breasts is not really critical. However, perk and 'young' breasts would always be judged more attractive than long sagging breasts. It's clear that the function of breasts is correlated to age. And that sexual attractiveness increases the more attractive the breast is. Similarly, if a young woman is starved for a long time in a sand blown deserts, the first things to go are the form of the breasts. She is not in an ideal reproductive state, as rearing children requires a lot of water. Old women who are past reproductive age often have their breasts change to a different less attractive form. Conclusion: Breasts, and some other female parts are a simple indication of youth and reproductive health for a society that is clever enough to fake the other things usually used by other primates.

rgoddard 17y ago
Interestingly enough you are arguing that breasts evolved to make women more honest - makes it harder for them to lie about their age. The author argued that breasts allowed the women to be less honest - removed indication of infertility. But in either case, the rest of the argument of how men evolved to like breasts could still be true. All this really tells us is that the range of possibilities are large. I think the question of how one could prove, or at least narrow down the possibilities is an interesting one. For example, if one could demonstrate that our ancestors had an aversion to breasts, and that the change to liking them was in a reasonable probability of occurring in the way the author describes, then his explanation is reasonable. But, given the random nature of evolution, finding the precise answer may not be possible and the best we can hope for is a set of weighted possible explanations.
ckuehne 17y ago
>He's wrong for a simple reason: Breasts are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. Your argument is not valid. It's not the cost alone that count, but the benefits minus the costs. Imagine your argument against human intelligence instead: Human intelligence could not have evolved for a simple reason: brains that produce intelligent behaviour are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. Also: please read up on the unit of selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection. Selection on the level of groups (let alone "society") is very, very unlikely (to say the least) and has long been abonded as theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection.
- markessien 17y ago
  I just read through the group selection wikipedia article. It does not seem to be abandoned as a theory, it seems to be a topic with proponents on both sides, and there are strong arguments for both sides. The selfish gene argument is an old one, and it's just mainstream, that's all.

rgoddard 17y ago

Interestingly enough you are arguing that breasts evolved to make women more honest - makes it harder for them to lie about their age. The author argued that breasts allowed the women to be less honest - removed indication of infertility. But in either case, the rest of the argument of how men evolved to like breasts could still be true. All this really tells us is that the range of possibilities are large. I think the question of how one could prove, or at least narrow down the possibilities is an interesting one. For example, if one could demonstrate that our ancestors had an aversion to breasts, and that the change to liking them was in a reasonable probability of occurring in the way the author describes, then his explanation is reasonable. But, given the random nature of evolution, finding the precise answer may not be possible and the best we can hope for is a set of weighted possible explanations.

ckuehne 17y ago

>He's wrong for a simple reason: Breasts are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. Your argument is not valid. It's not the cost alone that count, but the benefits minus the costs. Imagine your argument against human intelligence instead: Human intelligence could not have evolved for a simple reason: brains that produce intelligent behaviour are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them. Also: please read up on the unit of selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection. Selection on the level of groups (let alone "society") is very, very unlikely (to say the least) and has long been abonded as theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection.

markessien 17y ago
I just read through the group selection wikipedia article. It does not seem to be abandoned as a theory, it seems to be a topic with proponents on both sides, and there are strong arguments for both sides. The selfish gene argument is an old one, and it's just mainstream, that's all.