From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 21:14:39 MDT
Spike66 wrote:
> Yes g, but we are viewing the field long after the game
> is over.
Okay, sorry I wasn't aware that you think your bulbous head theory of
mate-selection is no longer in effect. I suppose then that what you're
saying is that now that women have got their big-headed men, they're on to
something else. (Good for them, too. Women are always scheming about
something with regard to mate-selection, and this is probably a good thing
for the human species! :-)
> Pimp juice gave rise to more and better pimp juice.
Right, I gotcha'.
> 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.
Well, I wouldn't agree with Lee on that, necessarily, at least with respect
to married couples and committed relationships like my own. In sociological
terms, I think that in the 70's the pill was all about female sexual
freedom. But I think it's not only a female freedom thing in 2003. It's
about sexual freedom for everyone.
> 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.
Interesting question! Can't say I know the answer.
Off-hand I would guess that when and if gene-modification of embryos becomes
viable, the legislature will restrict access to the technology to married
couples, or their equivalent. In other words I don't think unwed 18 year old
girls will have legal access to the technology if they can't show that it
was not their only intention to get pregnant by some horny unnamed drunk guy
in order to have a super-baby.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 21:20:50 MDT