From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 21:33:06 MDT
gts wrote:
> spike,
>
> A few days ago I posted a message here about the conversation I had with my
> girlfriend about your bulbous head theory (the interesting theory that 1)
> modern mate selection in humans is driven mostly by females, and that 2)
> women are attracted to men with large heads because their babies have large
> heads, and that 3) this has caused the evolution of larger heads and larger
> brains.)
Yes g, but we are viewing the field long after the game
is over. The notion is that females choosing large-headed
males because they looked a little like children is a
mechanism that would have been a factor when human heads
were much smaller than they are today. I entertain the
idea that the mechanism caused a positive feedback loop:
an isolated population of the human/chimp ancestor
decided for some odd reason to select for big headedness.
immediate result is individuals capable of actions that
can be considered secondary sexual ornamentation, such
as singing, for instance. Then the females would choose
the singers, a group that might be slightly larger-brained,
who gave rise to a subset capable of hurling stones, which
allowed them to bring home more meat, etc. Pimp juice
gave rise to more and better pimp juice. The process pushed
hat sizes up until it reached a limit: the size of the
female pelvis limited infant head sizes. A negative
feedback loop kicked in: big headed babies slew their
mothers (and often themselves) childbirth.
It is the positive feedback loop I am primarily interested
in, for I need to understand this in order to get an idea
what things we should be looking for in the developments
that precede an AI or singularity.
> We'd likely still be living in caves if it weren't for the female thirst for
> pimp juice. :)
>
> -gts
After I thought it over, I am no longer convinced that
it matters so much if the mating is female-choice driven
or male-choice. As Lee Corbin pointed out, we have a
current situation where the females can have as many
children as they want and males have little say in
the matter really. Does that have a specific and
model-able effect on the path of evolution? Furthermore,
if we get gene modification, that throws the mate-selection
mechanism for evolution into high gear. Or perhaps it
needs to be modelled as a completely separate mechanism,
neither survival selection nor mate selection.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 21:41:35 MDT