Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Curbing male population does not affect the population growth on its own, right. But the mechanical focus on female procreation definitely leads to limited imagination how nature or cultures may indirectly address population growth limitations, especially on isolated small islands.

Human cultures are not arbitrary whims for entertainment. Robert Anton Wilson has said:

It is sometime mistakenly stated that there are no universal sexual taboos. This is not true. There is one omni-purpose taboo which exists in every tribe.

That taboo stipulates that sexuality shall not be unregulated by the tribe.

As it is often denounced, sexual repression in most cultures disproportionally addresses female sexuality. Definitely no relation to potential population growth, right?

On a more biological side, women do not have to be taught to discriminate against scrubs without stones or without balls to meet a cultural-economic challenge. Even if testosterone brawls do not look pretty, a woman does want her own man to be exceptional - and able, hunky, testosterone stocked guys do very well for them. That is how the bioeconomic population check works naturally to territorial birds and hierarchical primates: a male represents resources he can control, while females are "disciplined" to choose those with enough chest. If the resources (or able guys) are limited, there are easily fewer females reproducing.

by das monde on Sun Jun 28th, 2015 at 11:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series