Classism is Inenvitable

[hmkpoker]

(I don't know if this belongs in Politics or SMP. Iron, it's your call.)



I have been watching the Planet Earth series on Discovery and have noticed something very obvious about evolution: all of it, in every species, comes about through intensely choosy sexual selection. It does not matter how many natural resources there are, females are always extremely selective when it comes to finding a mate.

The logic behind it is usually very apparent. Male rams in high mountains compete fiercely with one another on dangerous cliffs (sometimes resulting in death for the losers). The females are attracted to the winner, who goes on to pass his genes, which are the fittest for survival in a harsh environment with scarce resources. This is, of course, an absolute evolutionary necessity; without a simple behavioral norm to select the fittest genes, a species would quickly go extinct in harsh environments.

But what if resources were not so scarce and the environment were very accomodating? If each member had all the material comforts they wanted, would there be any purpose to sexual selection? Would females simply mate with whomever was there at the time? Zoology suggests otherwise.

Consider the bird of paradise from the tropics of Papua New Guinea.



Dwelling in the lush rainforests where temperatures are comfortable and food is abundant, this bird has its survival cut out for it much moreso than animals in harsher environments. Evolution has shaped it (like many tropical animals) on the basis of appearance moreso than athletic fitness. Its flamboyant appearance seems very impractical for survival in most parts of the world, but in its home it is perfectly suited to its environment.

Mating rituals for such animals are quite different. The male bird of paradise will spend days or even weeks preparing a small clearing on the forest floor as an inviting "bachelor pad" to attract the females. After meticulously feng shui-ing his desired spot, the male waits for a female to wander by, at which point he attempts to impress her with a wild dance, flaunting its very ornamental body wildly. The male is usually unsuccessful, however, as the female is very selective and will only mate with the most attractive male who has the nicest house. No mountain ram could ever afford to spend so much time preparing a "bachelor pad" for prospective females, yet females of both species are just as selective even though the bird of paradise, from an economic perspective, is much wealthier.

It is selective proxies like these that give rise to classes in the world. Selective tendencies result in pecking orders of many varieties in the animal world. Carnivorous animals divide themselves into alphas and omegas. Insects are assigned specific roles within the colonies. And in the shark world, ovoviparious fetuses feed on their unborn siblings in utero, ensuring that the fittest are the ones to survive and pass on their genes.

Humans are, of course, no exception. The females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world. The time they spend searching for "Mr. Right" often exceeds the life expectancies of most mammalian species in the wild...and they do so from a much, much larger pool of potential mates.

It needs no mentioning that economic success is one of the most important criteria to most human females. A loser in a studio apartment with a minimum wage job is going to have a much more difficult time mating with a desirable female than a man with a Mercedes and a Rolex, even if they are identical in appearance. The pertinent characteristics of the successful male are admired and envied by the less successful males, who try to emulate him and achieve his success (which happens to take place on the economic sphere in civilized human society). Unconsiously, divional hierarchies between rich and poor manifest, and the infamous "class struggle" is born.

But is it reasonable to think that artificially-engineered economic equality would end classism? This, to me, makes no sense. Let us assume that communism works. A central state provides each member of society with equal rations of resources. Each person recieves identical compensation for their labor (which, conveniently, is equally laborious across the board). No person does, should or can "move up in the world." Possibly catastropic economic reprocussions ignored, do all people treat each other as equals in this society?

Before you answer this question, realize that I have very closely described the settings of American schoolchildren. From puberty until the graduation of high school (and extending into college), American teenagers are largely identical economically in their respective settings. They have very meager, if any, incomes, and most of their resources are provided for automatically. Lacking job skills at this point in their lives, their jobs are typically minimum wage/entry level type trades that are embarrassing to adults, but acceptable for teenagers. Females at this age tend to care very little about the vocation of potential mates in their selective processes (in fact the prom king of my high school pumped gas for extra money in the summer). Does this imply that females are not selective at all? No. They simply exercise selection across the most relevant relative proxy. Economic status may be controlled but appearances and athletic prowesses are not. Accordingly, the goalposts are in entirely different areas and rigid hierarchies are formed on entirely different grounds. The alpha jocks intimidate the omega nerds. Such settings are no less class-based than the later "real world," where luckily many of the former omega males' characteristics suddenly become advantageous.

Human beings are not equal. Find me any two human males and I will show you hundreds of distinguishable characteristics that uniquely identify them. Variance and the selection that occurs within it is the underlying drive of all animal life. Discriminatory, internalized selection quite literally shaped the environment, the frontal cortex, and civilization. We are not equal, and we should be damn happy about that; for if we were, we would all be dead.

Cliff Notes: Humans, being animals, are shaped to be as selective in their sexual decisions are environmental conditions allow. Sexual/natural selection forms the basis of classism in society. Differences in economic status is not the cause of classism, it is simply one of the most important proxies for selection in our world. Isolate it, and the goalposts will shift, forming classes along lines that are much less apparent to us today. This is neither right nor wrong, it is just a simple fact of being animal.

[pvn]

Just as the UBI can equalize incomes, the UBV can equalize sex.

[Dane S]

I enjoyed your post. Very well argued and well written.

A quibble:

I think using kids in school as a parallel to the "real world" presents some problems, mainly because kids will be influenced by the behavior of their parents, and their parents will be influenced by their status and situation in the "real world", so I don't think you can really assert that the school is an isolated egalitarian society in any meaningful way. Confident parents have confident kids. Rich parents are more likely to be confident. Etcetera etcetera. There are some interesting trends with the alpha/omega stuff, but I don't think it stands up that well.

A nit:

Inevitable

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper

[Dane S]

Birth control.

[Borodog]

I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so happy I don't live in the same world as you AC folk.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]


While females do have to compete for males, I think it is safe to say that males are far more competitive in the sexual market than females are, and for good reason. A male can reproduce in phenomenal quantities, but a female can only reproduce in small quantities. It is theoretically possible for a male to father hundreds or thousands of children in his lifetime; a female, on the other hand, is incapable of reproducing more than a dozen or so times. Because of their reproductive limitation, females must be much more selective than males in their choice of partner if they want to maximize their reproductive potential. The result: males must compete much more fiercely than females for reproduction. (They are both competing, but to different degrees)

This is very similar to the job market, actually. Employees are far more plentiful than employers, so the employer is usually much choosier than the employee. The employer must still offer a competitive wage, but the employee competition is much more apparent (this is why many leftists are inclined to believe that the employers are not competing for the employees at all.) This becomes even more apparent during times of employee shortages. For example, there is a pretty significant shortage of hospital nurses in the country at the moment, and my aunt (an RN) is making an awful lot more money right now than she was several years ago. The more limited the selection becomes, the more fiercely the selectors must compete for them.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet stupid people continue to breed at higher rates. Leave it to our govt to take from the genetic superiors to give to the Jerry Springer guests....WTF!, the future of the human race is at stake. I SAY LET MOTHER NATURE THIN THE HUMAN HERD OUT AS SHE SEES FIT.

tommorrow on springer..... 27 men...who is the father? (you can bet that there are 15 or less jobs held by the 27 men, most have sub 100 IQs, and they were all dumb enuff to drill some 300+ pound cumdumpster of a thing that resembles a woman, only hairier)

not quite my definition of selective breeding. Sounds more like the anaconda breeding ball I saw on discovery channel.

jerrry!jerrrry!jerrrrrrry!