> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Doug?]
> > If a conquered community's offspring were mostly
> > procreated by one man or
> > one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this
> > reduce the genetic
> > diversity of a population and thus result in an
> > evolutionary disadvantage?
> Probably. But then I bet the raper isn't thinking
> altruistically about the Human Race, but rather
> maximizing the spread of his genes. It's an
> evolutionary advantage, but to HIM.
True; unless the community is already quite insular or
inbred, it probably won't be too detrimental to their
genepool - distasteful as that may be. :P (Again,
look at the propable Khan gene.)
> I think the confusion here is the association of
> rape=evolutionary advantage. I would posit the
> evolutionary advantage rather is promiscuity. Rape
> is merely a method in order to maximize that
> promiscuity.
If the number of offspring is very high and requires
no post-production care (I forget if that's a K or R
strategy), promiscuity is favored for both sexes
(corals, frex); if offspring require a great deal of
care to raise to reproductive age, then usually the
number is low and monogamy is favored (as in many
birds). For other birds and many mammalian species,
since the female's investment is quite high, she is
benefited by having a male around to help protect and
feed the young, while he is benefited by impregnating
as many females as possible. This conflict is not
confined to the human race!
Himself wrote about this, referring to "elk-men" and
"stork-men" as the promiscuous vs. monogamous modes.
At least in voles, this is genetically determined
(mountain vs. plains species).
Debbi
whose cats are averaging 3-4+ voles/week
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
