It just makes you wish you were dead.

Wazzat? Some kind of fish spread?

If you've been eating fish.

In spite of Libertarians...

The never ending analysis speculation about the USA.

The main job of all individuals, in all species, plant and animal, is to pass along their DNA.

In humanity, more females pass along their DNA than males. In all human history, there are twice as many women in the DNA record than there are men.

So half the men are out. Some men don't care for sex with women. Some men don't pass along their DNA on a voluntary basis. (But historically, it hasn't been so much of a choice; arguably, we didn't even understand the exact relationship between sex and pregnancy until recently in human history.) Some men don't care for sex at all.

But the biggest reason men don't get to pass along their DNA is that they are rejected by the women. For whatever reason, they don't do the mating dance well, and are not selected.

Today, sometimes, we can see why those men are rejected. Prehistorically, we're not so sure. Here is the most amazing graph on this topic, ever.

On the left, the number of men reproducing their DNA. On the right, the women.

http://cellar.org/2017/men-women-reproducing.jpg

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced For Every One Man

It turns out that, after the advent of agriculture, human behavior suddenly and radically changed... on every continent. Rather suddenly, the women became highly selective. Suddenly it was really rare for a man to qualify.

(It's like middle school all over again...)

If you read the article you will find that they have theories about why this is so, but nobody really knows!! All they know is that it's the first marker that human culture affected evolution.

I don't buy the notion that women were more selective. This looks to me like a man-vs-man issue, as it almost always has been throughout history. Harems, for example, were not an example of women being selective; they were an example of one man having more power than the rest. Same with the sister-wives in traditional Mormon culture. Evolutionarily, women seek safety and food for themselves and their children before sexual satisfaction. So if one man beats all the others into submission--either physically or economically--the women don't really have a choice. They're already completely beaten both physically and economically (we don't know for sure about 8,000 years ago, of course, but I think it's fair to extrapolate from the last 2,000 years of recorded history).

The answer, of course, is to give the women all the money and power. Then you would see the most egalitarian sexual distribution possible.

See they're all gold diggers, it's in their DNA. :p:

Could be -- but -- the frustration resulting from male involuntary celibacy would lead to a lot of regular challenges to the amazing level of dominance hierarchy that would lead to a 17:1 ratio

Chimps are interested in fairness. When things seem unfair in the chimp world, the top chimps get their ass beat by a cooperative group of lesser chimps.

So, this ratio may require the cooperation of lesser males, in some fashion...

It looks like the end happens with civilization, and the end of tribes

Ideally, sure. But not if the involuntarily celibate had been bamboozled into believing it was the women's fault. Then they just stew in anger until they kill a woman they've decided should be theirs, or else drive a van into a crowded sidewalk.

When viewed from such a zoomed-out resolution that all men appear to be nothing but pussyhounds, sure. :thumbsup:

Gosh, 400 months in a row could almost be called a trend...

So...

Urrwhurr but the Eastern U.S. and Eastern Canadia is getting warmer, and we're getting cooler?

Works for me.

That's because you're thinking weather instead of climate.