>>I think things are not so simple. The vast human genome isn't so simply driven.<<
You'd like to think so. I'm sure you understand, Mq, that gold is a concentrated metaphor for resources. And you're right, the human genome isn't so simply driven. A few gold baubles aren't enough, males need more depth in their resources - a good fruit tree, a water hole and a dry cave to name but three.
There are a few other dimensions to female reproductive choices, as you say - health, physical symmetry, immune system characteristics as communicated by pheromones. On the other hand, male reproductive choices are strictly one-dimensional. What does that say about us?
>>The gold necklace, the dangling gold rock, the gold-plated cellphone, the red Ferrari, the gold card, the leather jacket, the hair-dye, toupee and Viagra. A lot of girls would love to have their children ... [but I think more would prefer just to get the money].<<
Well, you've actually put your finger on the reproductive strategy used by many female mammals. Genetic testing across many species has shown a remarkably consistent statistic - about 10% of the offspring in any male-female mammalian pair are not genetically related to the male of the pair. At the risk of getting even more offensive than I fear I may have already been to those who hew to pc dogma over scientific fact, recent research shows that women are attracted to different male characteristics at different times, finding the harder, more angular appearance of males with high testosterone levels more attractive at certain times, shall we say, while preferring the softer appearance of males with lower testosterone levels at other times. You connect the dots. |
