Finished the chapter on "Male and Female".
I am impressed, and admittedly dismayed, by the degree to which evolutionary theory explains why:
To think it is all because a man can sire an unlimited number of children at a time, but a woman can only bear a limited number at a time. It is in a man's genetic self-interest to fertalise as many eggs as he can out there, and in a woman's self-interest to make the few that she has count. So men have to fend off other men to get the scarce resource of a woman's consent--enter competitiveness and aggression. It is powerful how everything seems to follow from the Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, when appealing to human nature as a basis for morality, it cannot be human nature simpliciter! The reason that men and women are so much at odds with each other has very much to do with the biological inequalities that nature has to work with, such as the abovementioned inequality.
What's really interesting about this predicament is how robust it is. Even if you were to breed competitiveness, aggression and promiscuity out of the male, those traits would tend to reassert themselves over time because it is in man's genetic self-interest. In order to properly reform human nature, therefore, one would have to do it at the reproductive level. Suppose that the human female laid eggs instead of relying on internal gestation. If these eggs did not consitute a large biological investment on her part, and could be put in a safe place where she wouldn't have to worry about them, then she would become capable of having an unlimited number of children at a time as well. This would level the playing field, and make the sexes closer to each other. Women might become more interested in impersonal sex, men might become less aggressive, and so on--but in clear respects, it just wouldn't be the human species anymore!
The next chapter is also full of examples of how men and women are evolved to pretty much drive each other crazy. I'll report on that when I've read it all.
- Women are choosier than men when selecting a partner.
- Men are more interested in quantity of partners and women more interested in quality.
- Men do the work to woo the women.
- Men are more competitive than women.
- Men are more aggressive than women.
To think it is all because a man can sire an unlimited number of children at a time, but a woman can only bear a limited number at a time. It is in a man's genetic self-interest to fertalise as many eggs as he can out there, and in a woman's self-interest to make the few that she has count. So men have to fend off other men to get the scarce resource of a woman's consent--enter competitiveness and aggression. It is powerful how everything seems to follow from the Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, when appealing to human nature as a basis for morality, it cannot be human nature simpliciter! The reason that men and women are so much at odds with each other has very much to do with the biological inequalities that nature has to work with, such as the abovementioned inequality.
What's really interesting about this predicament is how robust it is. Even if you were to breed competitiveness, aggression and promiscuity out of the male, those traits would tend to reassert themselves over time because it is in man's genetic self-interest. In order to properly reform human nature, therefore, one would have to do it at the reproductive level. Suppose that the human female laid eggs instead of relying on internal gestation. If these eggs did not consitute a large biological investment on her part, and could be put in a safe place where she wouldn't have to worry about them, then she would become capable of having an unlimited number of children at a time as well. This would level the playing field, and make the sexes closer to each other. Women might become more interested in impersonal sex, men might become less aggressive, and so on--but in clear respects, it just wouldn't be the human species anymore!
The next chapter is also full of examples of how men and women are evolved to pretty much drive each other crazy. I'll report on that when I've read it all.
Comments